Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Equality (Sexual Orientation)

Peter Bone: On what basis the timetable was set for the introduction of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006.

David Hanson: The timetable for the introduction of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 was set to ensure that regulations were in place for 1 January 2007. The Government wished to have the regulations in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity following the consultation.

Peter Bone: Did not a fact that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew the attention of this House to the fact that the regulations are defective in no fewer than five areas? The Secretary of State bulldozed these new laws—which promote gay rights over religious freedom—through Parliament, not in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, but because of his own political ambition to become the next Deputy Prime Minister.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman's contribution does not do him good service. The House of Lords voted overwhelmingly for the regulations, and the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly for the regulations. They did so because they recognised that the regulations are fair and proper for gay and lesbian people in the community at large. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has made some comments, and we have agreed to lay amending regulations based on them. However, those comments do not detract from the main resolution, which has been passed by this House. Indeed, the measure was passed and agreed by the Assembly in Northern Ireland on a 38:38 vote. The hon. Gentleman should examine the equality issues and share the aspiration of this House and another place to support equality in the community.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The regulations were certainly not passed by the Assembly—it is beyond me how a tied vote represents a pass. The four main denominations in Northern Ireland and many political representatives oppose the regulations. They believe that they offend against religious freedom in Northern Ireland. The regulations were railroaded through, despite the fact that the Government held them back for the rest of the United Kingdom. Why is Northern Ireland continually treated as a place to experiment with such laws on behalf of the rest of the UK? This is about political expediency rather than recognising the will of the people of Northern Ireland, the majority of whom oppose these regulations.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman proposed the vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly to reject the regulations, and that vote was not carried. The other place voted overwhelmingly for the regulations, and this House has done so, too. In Committee, the regulations were carried by 15 votes to three. They were supported not only by my hon. Friends, but by Opposition Members. The regulations are fair and proper, there has been consultation and I have met the Churches. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), will discuss with the adoption agencies how to implement the regulations. I believe that they are fair and proper, and I commend them to the House.

Evan Harris: Does the Minister accept that although the regulations and the process were not perfect, there is, as he has said, strong support for the regulations from Opposition Members? The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) might note that only one Conservative turned up to vote against the regulations in the Standing Committee, which suggests that the Conservative party's objections are not very deep. There was only one vote against from the Conservatives.

David Hanson: I was grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) in Committee. As was his legitimate right, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) voted against the regulations—I respect his opinions, too. The regulations are about protecting fairness and justice and ensuring that there is no discrimination and that people have the opportunity to receive goods and services, whatever their sexual orientation; they are not about discriminating against people's views. People are entitled to hold views and to preach views, and the Churches are entitled to hold views, but they are not entitled to practise discrimination on the receipt of goods and services.

Paramilitary Activity

Bob Spink: What recent assessment he has made of the level of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: The latest Independent Monitoring Commission report provides further confirmation that paramilitary activity is declining and that the security situation in Northern Ireland has been transformed from what it was even 18 months ago.

Bob Spink: We all welcome the announcement by former paramilitaries that they will now support the police and security forces, which is a good first step. Does he agree, however, that words from such sources come very cheap and that it is only through sustained delivery that we can have real confidence that they have changed?

Peter Hain: Of course there needs to be delivery. It is important that people appreciate the fact, which the hon. Gentleman has welcomed, that the leadership of Sinn Fein has said that it is the responsibility of people to co-operate with the police in dealing with crimes such as burglary, rape and the harassment of old people. It has said that republicans should join the police, and it has said that evidence, where it exists, and information should be brought forward on the McCartney murder case. Those are all positive signs that delivery is taking place. The IMC report is definitive—as it has been in the six reports since the IRA issued its statement that it was giving up its armed campaign on 28 July—that the IRA poses no terrorist threat, that it is driving criminality out of the organisation and that it is delivering on what people have demanded: no terrorism, no criminality and support for the police and the rule of law. The House should welcome that.

Gregory Campbell: Given that there have been thousands of unsolved murders and serious crimes in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years, many of them committed by the Provisional IRA, and given the statement by Sinn Fein a week ago at its conference, to which the Secretary of State alluded, does he expect, as many of us do in Northern Ireland, that even though the qualified words were there, information should now be given to the police about those crimes so that they can be brought before the courts?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chief Constable's historical inquiries team is investigating past cases. Of course, everybody will want those cases to be pursued, and where prosecutions can be brought they should be brought. What is irrefutable, however, is that in the current context—partly, I readily concede to the hon. Gentleman, due to the pressure that his party has applied over recent years—we now have a situation whereby all the parties in an incoming Executive on 26 March support the police and the rule of law. That is an historic transformation, and it is up to the DUP to respond positively to it.

Olympics 2012

Peter Robinson: What progress has been made on meeting the capital expenditure programme set for Northern Ireland relating to the 2012 Olympic games.

Maria Eagle: Some £50 million has been set aside for building a new Olympics sports infrastructure. The Government have made good progress on their first project for the 2012 Olympic games. Castlereagh and North Down borough councils are the final two bidders seeking to build an Olympic-sized swimming pool. We have also recently announced the first stage of the second competition for the other Olympic and Paralympic sports facilities, which will close on 30 March.

Peter Robinson: I am encouraged by the Under-Secretary's response on the physical infrastructure, but when her hon. Friend the Minister outlined the Department's strategy, he laid emphasis on the fact that there are two aspects to this—the physical infrastructure and the human infrastructure. He defined the requirements in terms of getting greater participation in sport, improving sporting performance on the international stage, encouraging greater involvement in schools and opportunities for young people, and, importantly, improving the skills available to coaches, sports scientists and others involved in the human infrastructure. What measurements does the Under-Secretary have to ensure that progress is made in those areas so that there is a real legacy from the games?

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there is no point in having facilities without young people exploiting their talent in order to achieve sporting success, and that the human infrastructure is just as important as buildings and facilities. The sports strategy for Northern Ireland that is to be published shortly—not during the election purdah period, but immediately thereafter—will set out our proposals for many of these issues, with moneys bid for under the comprehensive spending review. The strategy sets out a full range of arrangements in respect of elite athletes, for volunteering and for coaching. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that many schoolchildren from Northern Ireland have already participated in the first of the schools games, which will take place annually leading up to 2012. He will have to wait a little longer to see the details, but I can assure him that there is a fully worked out programme that should enable us to develop the human infrastructure that we need, as well as to build the facilities required.

Organised Crime

John Robertson: What discussions he has had on improving cross-border co-operation between law enforcement agencies in their fight against organised crime; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Goggins: The Government have put in place long-standing and effective arrangements for cross border co-operation to combat organised crime, with strong links at both strategic and operational levels.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and congratulate him on the work that is being done in Northern Ireland as regards cross-border co-operation. I know that he understands that it is important to fight criminality on both sides of the border, but is he convinced that the merger of the Assets Recovery Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency will deliver benefits in tackling organised crime on both sides of the border?

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not only his question but his long-standing interest in the matter. I am not afraid of the merger between the Assets Recovery Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency—it signals that we will toughen up the fight against crime in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. The Home Office has given us assurances that the resources will remain at least at the current level. A lead figure will be put in charge of the asset recovery work in the new merged agency. The message is clear: organised crime will not be tolerated; those responsible will be held to account.

Patrick Cormack: Is the Minister aware that there is disquiet on both sides of the border? From conversations that members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs held in Belfast and Dublin, it is clear that the premature abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency causes disquiet. Will he spell out the assurances that people on both sides of the border need?

Paul Goggins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Indeed, I pay tribute to his work and that of the Committee in drawing attention to serious organised crime in Northern Ireland. I repeat that there is a commitment to provide at least the same level of resources to tackle such crime. A lead figure in the new agency will take the lead on asset recovery work. The agency will be able to set its local priorities in Northern Ireland in communication and collaboration with colleagues south of the border. I understand that the change causes concern because of the success of asset recovery work in Northern Ireland. However, the message is clear: the fight will go on as before.

Mark Durkan: As the Minister said, the Assets Recovery Agency has been successful in Northern Ireland. It has conducted joint operations with the Criminal Assets Bureau in the south, such is the extent of the co-operation. Indeed, the Criminal Assets Bureau estimates that some 35 per cent. of its case load has significant cross-border dimensions. What further assurance can the Minister give us that the switch from the Assets Recovery Agency to the Serious Organised Crime Agency will not compromise that good work? The Serious Organised Crime Agency goes after bigger game than the local Mr. Bigs that the Assets Recovery Agency successfully tackles.
	As well as addressing further north-south co-operation, can the Minister say anything about plans to expand east-west co-operation, including through the British-Irish Council, with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands?

Paul Goggins: Of course, the widest possible co-operation is essential in the fight against organised crime throughout the United Kingdom and beyond. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the new merged agency will be able to set its local priorities in Northern Ireland for asset recovery work. He is right, especially in his first point about the co-operative work between the Assets Recovery Agency and the Criminal Assets Bureau. Only a short time ago, a VAT fraud case was settled after being tackled by both agencies to the tune of some £18 million, which was repaid to the Assets Recovery Agency and the Criminal Assets Bureau. That is the sort of work in which those agencies are involved. It sends a strong message that organised crime will not be tolerated.

Lady Hermon: I listened intently to the Minister's responses to questions on the matter. Given the serious disquiet of the Chief Constable about abolishing the Assets Recovery Agency, and given that the agency will meet all its budget targets for the coming year, will he shed some light on a question? Did the Northern Ireland Office make any representations to the Home Office to prevent the annihilation of the Assets Recovery Agency?

Paul Goggins: I do not accept the hon. Lady's comment about the annihilation of the Assets Recovery Agency. Two agencies, for which the Home Office is responsible, are being merged. The Home Office has introduced the changes as part of a review of non-departmental public bodies. It makes sense, but I understand why she and others express concern. Asset recovery work in Northern Ireland has been successful, and I assure her and the House that it will continue undiminished.

David Lidington: Can the Minister say whether, if the devolution of criminal justice and policing takes place, a devolved Justice Minister, possibly from Sinn Fein, would be expected to play a part in determining the priorities for asset recovery and other SOCA work in Northern Ireland, as his Home Office counterpart intimated to me in a reply last week?

Paul Goggins: I shall not speculate about the identity of a future Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, but I expect anyone who takes up that position to play an active role in the fight against organised crime. I currently chair the Organised Crime Task Force stakeholder group. I hope that other Ministers in future will continue to be actively involved, as I am. The strong message is that the fight against organised crime will go on, whether or not there is direct rule and whether or not policing and justice have been devolved.

David Lidington: I am grateful for that reply. As the Chief Constable has said publicly that he is unhappy about the proposed merger, will the Minister give an absolutely clear-cut assurance that the reports in certain newspapers that it is intended as a political concession to republicans to take the heat off in south Armagh are completely wrong? Will he assure the House that the Government are determined that there will be no let-up whatever in efforts to bring to justice the godfathers of criminality in south Armagh and elsewhere in Northern Ireland?

Paul Goggins: There will be absolutely no let-up in the fight against organised crime. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue, on which the media have speculated, of the merger between the Assets Recovery Agency and Serious Organised Crime Agency somehow being a concession to Sinn Fein. It was certainly not such a concession: the proposal emerged from a proper review in the Home Office of non-departmental public bodies. The merger makes complete sense and will strengthen the fight against crime. The message that it sends out, as I have said previously, is that all those involved in crime will be held to account.

Peace Process

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on recent developments in the peace process.

Peter Hain: The Sinn Fein ard fheis decision to support policing and the courts was historic. The steps taken by Sinn Fein leaders in recent days to deliver that mean that all obstacles have been removed for devolution on 26 March.

Nicholas Winterton: Has the Secretary of State received an indication from Sinn Fein about when it will begin openly to support the police and the rule of law? Will Sinn Fein and its supporters report to the police any crime that they know about, especially as breakaway republican groups have not accepted Sinn Fein's decision on policing and the rule of law?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, breakaway groups of dissident republicans are expressly trying to sabotage the democratic peace process on which we are embarking for an election on 7 March and devolution on 26 March. That is their objective, and we must not allow that to happen. I can confirm, however, that Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, has said that in respect of crimes such as rape, car theft and violence against all people,
	"we will be actively encouraging people to work with the police, co-operate with the police to get the culprits, to get the perpetrators off our streets and dealt with properly."
	As I said earlier, he has also said that there should be full co-operation with the police on a range of other matters. The ard fheis motion passed by the Sinn Fein special conference was explicit in authorising support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the criminal justice system. As the hon. Gentleman has been concerned about such matters for many years, he will welcome all of that.

Alasdair McDonnell: What consideration has the Secretary of State given to a plan B in Northern Ireland? He will be aware that Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist party cannot trust each other and cannot be trusted to share power. They may agree to some sort of ugly carve-up by 26 March, but the circumstances do not bode well for the future of sustainable, devolved government. Does he think that a reliable plan B is now necessary in view of the unlikelihood of establishing devolved government by 26 March?

Peter Hain: Obviously—I do not expect this to happen—if everything falls over on 26 March, direct rule and cross-border co-operation will continue, and we will have to decide what to do. But that is by far an inferior and unsatisfactory alternative to plan A. Because of Sinn Fein's continuing delivery on support for policing, I expect that devolution will occur on 26 March, with an all-inclusive power-sharing Executive in which the SDLP will be represented. There should not be any reason for that not to be achieved— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should come to order.

Lembit �pik: On what the Secretary of State described as plan A, the DUP set a condition explicitly relating to full Sinn Fein involvement in Northern Ireland policing. Now that Sinn Fein has committed to exactly that, surely the conditions are being met, and the onus is on the DUP to play its part in restoring the Assembly. Does the Secretary of State see any justification for any party not now doing so?

Peter Hain: No, I cannot, provided that, as I expect, we see a continuation of what has already happened in the initiatives taken by the Sinn Fein leadership following the special conference 10 days or so agodelivery on support for policing and the rule of law. In that eventand that is what Sinn Fein is saying will happenthere is absolutely no reason for any Unionists not to join a power-sharing Executive on 26 March. I am optimistic because the alternative is only dissolution, not a postponement of 26 March, for which the legislation passed by Parliament does not allow.

William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State accept that Sinn Fein's conditional support for the rule of law, policing and the courts is totally unacceptable and will not advance devolution? Will he require Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams to call on their supporters to deal with terrorist crime? Does he not understand that DUP policy is condition-led, not calendar-led as he has suggested?

Peter Hain: I understand the DUP's position, and when the manifesto is published I shall be interested to see what it says. However, it seems to me that the St Andrews agreement, to which the DUP subscribed along with the other parties, is very clear. It refers to support for power-sharing and support for policing and the rule of law. Provided that, as I expectand as indeed has already happenedSinn Fein signs up to support for policing and the rule of law, there is no reason for Unionists in the DUP or any other party not to join it in governing in the future. If that opportunity were missed, it would mean a tremendous price for the hon. Gentleman's party and all the other parties, because dissolution would face Northern Ireland politics with a very bleak future for a very long time.

Laurence Robertson: Mr. Adams has delivered a statement about Sinn Fein's support for the police. Is it not the case that the IRA carried out an investigation of the murder of Mr. Robert McCartney, and indeed that it holds intelligence on those who carried it out? If the IRA is serious about supporting the police, should it not hand that file to them so that those people can be brought to justice, and so that the other constitutional parties can feel confident that Sinn Fein is serious about its support for the police?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will have read, as I have, a statement by the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, in which he said:
	Anybody who has any information on the McCartney killing should give it to the police.
	He could not have been clearer or more explicit. With all due respect, I think that, in the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should welcome that, should welcome the other progress made last week, should welcome the ard fheis motion, and should join the Government in saying that now is the timewith continued delivery on support for policing and the rule of lawfor everyone to join in a power-sharing Executive and a new era for devolved democracy in Northern Ireland.

School Hours (Extension)

Mary Creagh: What additional activities will be provided by allowing schools in Northern Ireland to extend their hours as a result of the children and young people funding package.

Maria Eagle: Under the children and young people funding package, almost two fifths of Northern Ireland schools are receiving extra resources so that they can provide additional activities such as breakfast clubs, homework clubs, study support, counselling and mentoring services, youth and sports clubs, arts and crafts, summer schemes, and environmental and health activities. A great deal of work is going on.

Mary Creagh: I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming that new money, which will reduce educational underachievement and improve health outcomes for the children of Northern Ireland. Has she made any assessment of the likely impact on the ability of parents, particularly mothers, to gain access to work opportunities, and can she reassure the House that she has given some consideration to long-term sustainable funding once the 100 million runs out in two years' time?

Maria Eagle: Although the money in the package is part of a two-year programme and is intended to feed into bids through the spending review, we have every intention of ensuringas my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clearnot only that the most disadvantaged children can benefit from extended schooling, but that all children and all schools in Northern Ireland can do so in due course.
	Many efforts are being madethrough domestic Departments in Northern Ireland and through initiatives such as pathways to workto ensure that people who are of working age but inactive are able to work, and the extended school hours are bound to help women return to employment.

Nigel Dodds: In welcoming the extra investment, which I hope will make an impact, can I urge the Minister to go further and to extend the programme from the current two fifths of schools to more schools in Northern Ireland, particularly in socially deprived areas such as in my constituency, where it would have a great impact?

Maria Eagle: Obviously, I was not speaking loudly enough when I gave my first answer. I have already said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has expressed the wish to extend the provision to all schools in Northern Ireland. I support him in that, and it would be valuable. There are pockets of deprivation elsewhere that would benefit from such support. Indeed, all schoolchildren in all schools would benefit from having such extended provision, and I hope that we will be able to provide that in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Andrew Dismore: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 February.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our condolences and sympathy to the family and friends of Second Lieutenant Jonathan Carlos Bracho-Cooke of the 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, who was killed in Iraq on Monday. He was a talented officer, and the whole House should be very proud of him and grateful for the difficult and dangerous job that he and others are doing on behalf of the country.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

Andrew Dismore: Last week the Community Security Trust reported a 31 per cent. increase in anti-Semitic incidents, including desecration of cemeteries and violence and abuse aimed even at children travelling to and from school, including in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend respond urgently and positively to the recommendations of the all-party inquiry into anti-Semitism to demonstrate his absolute commitment to dealing with this appalling hate crime?

Tony Blair: I am grateful for the all-party parliamentary group's report on anti-Semitism and for the data compiled by the Community Security Trust, which show that there have been about 600 anti-Semitic race hate incidents. We are determined to do everything we can to stamp out this form of race hate, not only in respect of Jewish people but in respect of any members of our community. The announcement today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government of a 5 million package, which will help us to combat extremism in local communities, will do something to help in that regard, but I think that a strong signal from the entire House of our abhorrence of any anti-Semitism or race hate crimes will be very welcome indeed.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the family of Second Lieutenant Jonathan Carlos Bracho-Cooke who died on Monday in Basra. I also associate myself entirely with what the Prime Minister said about racism and anti-Semitism.
	We have also been reminded in the last week that one of the tragedies of war is that terrible mistakes are made and that people die from so called friendly fire. Does the Prime Minister agree that, when mistakes happen, the Ministry of Defence owes it to the families concerned to provide them with as much information as possible as quickly as possible about the circumstances in which their loved ones were killed?

Tony Blair: Yes, of course I agree that that is what the Ministry of Defence should do. We deeply regret the distress caused to Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull's family by the delay in concluding the inquest into how he died. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will do everything we can to co-operate with the coroner and to make sure that the additional distress that is now being caused to the family is minimised.

David Cameron: I am grateful for that answer, but, specifically on the case of Matty Hull, the British board of inquiry three years ago saw a copy of the video that has now been released. The Ministry of Defence told the family at the time that some classified material had been withheld from them, but it did not tell them exactly what it was. The family thought that they were told that no tape existed. Is the Prime Minister entirely sure that in this specific case the Ministry of Defence did not in any way mislead the family?

Tony Blair: I am satisfied of this: although it is true that the CD was not originally provided to the coroner or the family because it was of US origin, its existence was provided to the coroner in a list of exhibits supporting the UK board of inquiry. I can also say that it was an MOD witness at the inquest who advised the MOD legal team of the existence of the CD. The legal team then sought advice regarding disclosure, and as the US origin of the CD was not realised at that time, it was advised that the coroner could be made aware of its existence. What has happened subsequently is now well known. I deeply regret, as I said, any additional distress that has been caused to the family, but I do believe that the MOD acted in good faith throughout. Of course it is important that it makes sure that information is given to the families concerned.

David Cameron: I do not for one minute underestimate the difficulties and sensitivities of these cases. The Prime Minister will be aware that the bodies of those who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan are returned via Brize Norton, in my constituency, and that the coroner's cases are held largely in Oxfordshire. It seems to me that there are several issues: the distance that the families have to travel to the coroner's court; the backlogs and delays in the inquests; and, now, the clear need for agreement with our allies, so that information, where possible, can be shared with relatives in a timely manner. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the MOD and the Department for Constitutional Affairs work together to improve and reform the system, and to give timely reports back to the House of Commons?

Tony Blair: Of course they should do that, and they will. Obviously, some of these situations are immensely difficult for the families concerned. Not merely have they lost their loved ones; they want to know, very properly, exactly what has happened. In addition, the whole purpose of the boards of inquiry that the UK forces undertake is to make sure that we learn the lessons of such incidents. Obviously, it is particularly distressing when a death occurs as a result of friendly fire. Unfortunately, in war, these things can happen, but in those circumstances it is particularly incumbent on us to make sure that we take into account very carefully and sensitively the concerns of the families involved. We will look again as a result of what has happened in the past few weeks to make sure that, in similar such circumstancesI hope that I can say this with some confidencewe can deal better with them.

Mr. Speaker: I call Colin Challen.

Colin Challen: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

Colin Challen: In their dreams, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the publication last Friday of the intergovernmental panel on climate change's fourth report on its assessment of climate change, which shows unequivocally that climate change is likely to be much worse than previously thought, does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to speed up the implementation of our policies and revise our targets, including that which might appear in the climate change Bill? In the light of all that and of what he told the Liaison Committee yesterday, will he agree to meet me and representatives of the renewable energy industry to discuss the faster implementation of those policies?

Tony Blair: I certainly would be delighted to do that on behalf of my hon. Friend. This is an extremely important issue, and coming up in the next few weeks is an energy White Paper, which will address security of supply and the question of how we replace the existing generation of nuclear power stations. Then there will be the climate change Bill, which, as my hon. Friend indicates, will make sure that we have sensible targets that this country can live with, and that we face up to our responsibilities in giving leadership on this issue. I point out that this country is one of the few in the world that will meet its Kyoto target; indeed, we will double it. We are leading the way internationally through the G8-plus-five dialogue, and making sure that we are working in harmony with our European partners and others to find a global framework that can allow us to put in place an international agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions after the Kyoto protocol expires.

Menzies Campbell: May I begin by associating myself with the Prime Minister's earlier expressions of condolence and sympathy, and with his remarks about racism in all its forms? Does he believe that his successor should seek a mandate from the British people in an early general election?

Tony Blair: I think we should continue to implement the manifesto, on which we were elected, for strong public services, a strong economy and good policies on law and order.

Menzies Campbell: That answer ignores one thing. At the last general election, the Prime Minister promised the British people that he would serve a full term. Now we know that he is going to serve only two years. Are not the British people entitled to their say about his successor?

Tony Blair: There was I thinking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted me to go, but he obviously wants me to stay. I thank him for that ringing endorsement and I am only sorry to have to disappoint him.

Alan Whitehead: Has my right hon. Friend spoken to the Chancellor of Germany about the proposed European wind super grid? If he has, what did she say to him?

Tony Blair: As a matter of fact, I have discussed the super wind grid, as it is called, with Chancellor Merkel. It is potentially a very exciting project for a huge wind farm in the North sea, butas my hon. Friend will recognisemany issues to do with cost and feasibility would have to be overcome. If we could increase significantly the amount of renewable energy that we get from wind sources, it would make a big difference to our ability to cut our CO2 emissions. My hon. Friend is right to say that such imaginative projects and the other measures that we will outline in the energy White Paper offer us the best way forward.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister has been having an interesting couple of weeks. During that time, has he noticed the vocal support of his Chancellor?

Tony Blair: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I have noticed. While we have been getting on with the pensions proposals for the future of the country, with producing the energy proposals that guarantee energy security and address climate change, with managing the huge investment in our schools, as a result of the strong economy that the Chancellor has produced, and with investing in the national health service, what has he been doing in the last few weeks?

David Cameron: We can take that as a no. I say to the Prime Minister that the Chancellor is not here, so we can have a frank chat about him. Does not the Prime Minister notice a bit of a pattern? In the rebellion over trust schools, the vote on the war in Iraq and now the row about cash for honours, every time the Prime Minister is in trouble, the Chancellor disappears. Why does he do it?

Tony Blair: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what I have noticed in the past few weeks. At the self-same time as he has called for more spending on prisons, housing, schools, rehab places, the intelligence service and school leavers, he has said that he will cut tax. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has produced the strongest economy, the lowest interest rates, the lowest unemployment and the highest employment in our country's history by taking a sensible view of investment and putting it before tax cuts. That is his position and my position: what is the right hon. Gentleman's position?

David Cameron: If the Chancellor is doing such a great job, bring him on. What are we waiting for? Is not the truth of British politics that the Prime Minister is too isolated to govern and the Chancellor is too indecisive to get rid of him?

Tony Blair: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman the truth. The truth is that we have been producing the lowest waiting lists ever in the national health service, the best school results ever in the history of our school system and the strongest economy that this country has ever seen. While we have been facing up to the difficult decisions, he has been ducking them. That is the difference between a party that has leadership and a party that has none.

David Clelland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unlike humans, who can remain fit for purpose for many decades, mechanical devices do not? Will he ensure the speedy passage through the House and the sympathetic support of the Government for the refurbishment and modernisation of the 26-year-old Tyne and Wear metro system, the business case for which was submitted last week, so that we on Tyneside may continue to pursue Government policies for reducing congestion, stimulating local economies, fighting climate change and improving social mobility?

Tony Blair: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will look closely at the proposals for the refurbishment of the metro, which would ensure that it continues to do its excellent work for the people of Newcastle and Gateshead. Fortunately, the proposals come in the context of the fact that we have been able to double investment in transport in the past 10 years, and further investments will come on line over the next few years. I cannot give him a definitive answer as yet, but we will look at the matter very closely.

Martin Horwood: In 2005, skilled IT professional Gary Douglas signed a Home Office pledge to make Britain his permanent home. The Home Office form said:
	This is essential and must be maintained.
	Will the Prime Minister look into Mr. Douglas's case, and explain why, having sold his home and business in New Zealand, he now faces deportation under retrospective changes to the highly skilled migrant worker programme, along with valued professionals from India and elsewhere? When will the Government start deporting the right people, and stop deporting the wrong ones?

Tony Blair: For obvious reasons, I cannot give an answer on the individual case. I do not know anything about it, but I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look into it. However, my usual experience is that the facts in such matters turn out to be a little more complicated than what is presented to me.

Si�n James: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in condemning the letter bomb attack that occurred in the DVLA building in my constituency this morning? I am sure that he will want to send his best wishes to the employee who was injured, and to her colleagues. I am also sure that that contemptible act will receive the full attention of the police and all concerned.

Tony Blair: I express my sympathy to all the people who have been caught up in the incidents that have taken place in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere. I am very sorry that they have been put through what has obviously been a very traumatic experience, and I hope that they recover from the injuries that they have sustained. There is nothing more that I can say at the moment, other than that we are investigating the incident very closely. As soon as we have some news that we can properly give her and the House, we will do so.

Lorely Burt: As part of his legacy, will the Prime Minister get a grip on the unfairness of local authority funding? Is he aware that residents in Solihull receive only 42p per head from central Government for every 1 paid in next-door Birmingham, even though Solihull has four of the most deprived wards in the country? Are lonely pensioners and sick children in Solihull less worthy of funding than their counterparts in Labour's former heartland?

Tony Blair: I point out to the hon. Lady that all local authorities, including Solihull, have received above-inflation increases in central Government funding over the past few years, and that that has been replicated in the funding for schools, law and order and the health service. The difficulty is that we have to measure how much each area gets according to an index that measures deprivation in particular. She will be aware that there is always going to be a limit on the amount of resources available. I understand that there are pockets of real deprivation in her constituency, but there are also immense pockets of deprivation in Birmingham. It is therefore important that we achieve a balanced outcome to the funding formula.

Tom Clarke: Given that wholesale energy prices have been reduced by a staggering 50 per cent. since last April, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for energy companies to stop offering excuses, and that they should move on to ensuring that there are real reductions for long-suffering consumers?

Tony Blair: I entirely understand what my right hon. Friend says, and hope that we are now at a turning point. He is right to say that there has been a big fall in wholesale prices recently, and I understand that some of the biggest suppliers are planning to announce that they will cut their prices for domestic customers in the very near future. He will know too that the latest international comparison data show that domestic British customers still have the lowest gas bills in Europe, and that their electricity bills are below the European average. However, he is absolutely right to say that energy prices have risen substantially over the past couple of years and that that is putting pressure on people's living standards. Therefore, I hope that companies will take the fall in wholesale prices on board and reduce prices for domestic customers.

Paul Holmes: The Government tell Chesterfield borough council housing department that as it has a surplus of money from council tenants' rent they are taking away more than 3 million a year to spend elsewhere. That surplus will rise to 5 million as the Government insist that council rents go up by more than inflation. At exactly the same time, the Government tell the housing department that it has too little money so it must privatise its council houses. Can the Prime Minister explain in which weird parallel universe it is possible to have too much money and too little money at exactly the same time?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that I would have to look at the situation in Chesterfield to know whether that is correct.

Bob Russell: Of course it is correct.

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me but my experience of the Lib Dems is such that I would have to look into the facts before I took them up, but I will look into them and get in touch with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes). We have increased the funding available for Chesterfield, as we have for other councils, but as I said in answer to a point a moment or two ago, people have to live within their means.

Ian Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday the Scottish Affairs Committee cancelled a booking with Hilton Hotels in Dundee? Does he agree with the European Union and me that American lawsfor example, on the boycott of Cubashould not be applied to American subsidiaries in Britain, Europe or worldwide, and will he agree to raise that with George Bush when next he meets him?

Tony Blair: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what must have been an acute emotional struggle between his views on America and his views on Europe. I am not sure that I can promise him that I will raise the matter with the President, but I am happy to look into it and, if I can be of any help, I will be.

John Randall: The Prime Minister said at the time of the last general election that he would serve a full term. Who or what made him change his mind?

Tony Blair: I went through this at length last year. However, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the most important thing for the country is that we continue with the policies that in 10 years have seen not just a strong economy but money flooding into areas such as his, which has meant, for example, that he has extra numbers of nurses and doctors, extra numbers of school buildings and that there are thousands of people[ Interruption.] That is what a strong economy has delivered. Pensioners and families in the hon. Gentleman's area are better off thanks to a Labour Government, and what everyone will remember at the next election is what it was like under the Tory Government he used to support.

Jim Devine: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the number of people in Scotland who work for the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury? How safe and secure are those jobs in the short, medium and long term?

Tony Blair: I assure my hon. Friend that the 20,000 jobs linked to defence in Scotland are safe if we continue with Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, but it would be a disaster for the Scottish defence industry and for people who work in defence services in Scotland if Scotland were wrenched out of the United Kingdom. Its economy would suffer and vital industries such as defence would be left without the security of being part of the United Kingdom.

Angela Browning: With the Government's policy to close more and more maternity units throughout the countrythe Prime Minister is a father and knows about such thingswhat guarantees can he give women in my rural constituency who have to travel further and further that they will not find themselves giving birth in some far-flung motorway services area en route to a hospital?

Tony Blair: I am sorry that the hon. Lady and the Conservative party have taken the view that they are against changes to maternity services, because [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.

Tony Blair: Let me just point out that [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister should answer, not any other Minister. It is Prime Minister's Question Time.

Tony Blair: I point out to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) that over the past few years not merely the number of midwives has increased, but that the number of consultants operating in that area has increased by 40 per cent. and that the number of midwives in training is more than 30 per cent. up. However, the advice we receive from clinicians and from those who actually deliver babies is that it is better to have a set of specialist services within maternity and midwife units. That is the best way to make sure that we save lives. What is absurd is for the Conservative party, which has opposed all the investment in the national health service, to oppose reforms that are absolutely vital to save patients' lives.

David Winnick: May I ask a frank question of my right hon. Friend?  [ Interruption. ] Not that one. Will he tell us when he came to the conclusion that a fully appointed House of Lords is not acceptable? Will he also tell us whether, when the voting takes place, he will vote in the Division Lobby for the Government's recommendations?

Tony Blair: Yes, of course I will. I have always expressed concern about a hybrid House. However, in our manifesto, because we were not able to resolve this issue in the last Parliament, we believed that it was right to try to seek consensus. I asked the Leader of the House to try to find that consensus. He has located it in the proposals that he has put forward. I will back those proposals. It is important that we try to resolve this issue once and for all. There are going to be different views right across the House, but it is sensible, if we can, to find a consensus so that this reform can be completed.

Greg Hands: The Prime Minister will know that in 2002 Abu Hamza had his assets frozen by the Chancellor, yet the following year was allowed to transfer a flat to his son, who has himself been convicted of terrorist offences. Why, five years later, has that glaring loophole in our anti-terror defences still not been closed?

Tony Blair: I do not agree that we have a loophole in the way in which we deal with terrorist finances. The most important thingwe have shown this in relation to the Abu Hamza caseis that we are prepared to take tough action against people who incite racism or extremism in our country. Let me just point out to the hon. Gentleman that every time we have introduced tougher measures on terrorism in the House[ Interruption.] Oh, yes, the Conservative party, while calling for tough measures in general, has voted against them in particular.

Gordon Prentice: Does my friend believe that there is such a thing as the public service ethos, and, if so, how would he define it?

Tony Blair: I define it as giving the best service to the user of that service. For example, I had a meeting with foundation hospitals just a short time ago, at which they showed how their business partners were able to help improve their procurement in their hospitals so that they saved money on procurement and put it into patient care. That seems to be the public service ethos in action. Public service is a set of values. Values remain constant; times do notthey change. That is why it is important that, as well as preserving those values of public service, we find new ways of implementing them for the new times in which we live.

John Hayes: The Prime Minister will know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made a bold and principled stand [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

John Hayes: He has made a bold and principled stand against multiculturalism, because, as he has argued, it too often emphasises the things that divide us, rather than those that unite us. Will the Prime Minister follow his lead by emphasising a better future based on social cohesion, social mobility and social justice, and acknowledge the damage that multiculturalism has done to people in this country of all races, religions and creeds?

Tony Blair: Before the Leader of the Opposition made his speech, I had already made a speechI am sorry that it obviously did not come across his deskcalling for multiculturalism to be balanced by a duty to integrate. However, let me just tell the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) something about multiculturalism. I do not think that the problem has ever been with the sense of multiculturalism celebrating diversity in our country. What it should not be is a source of division within our country. That is why I think that it is sensible to say to people that there are different faiths, different races and different cultures and that we are happy that we live together, but that what is essential is that there are certain values about tolerance and respect for other people, and about belief in democracy and freedom, which are essential British values that unite us all. I have to say to him that probably most sensible people in the House, on both sides, agree with that.

Kali Mountford: Will my right hon. Friend support the campaign that Women's Aid launched at No. 11 Downing street last week to act against domestic violence? The campaign uses images of very famous women made to look as though they have been abused by domestic violence. That is to make it clear that anyone can be abused, but that everyone should join in acting against domestic violence. We can all be witnesses; we can all take action; and we all should. This is a crime that we should all act againstand we should act now.

Tony Blair: I am happy to support that campaign. As my hon. Friend knows, we have made a substantial investment in tackling domestic violence over the past few years. It is interesting to point out, since we often hear bad news about aspects of the Home Office, that convictions at court have gone up from 8 per cent. to 32 per cent. since the programme was put in place; and the number of victims reporting ongoing violence has gone down from more than 30 per cent. to 10 per cent. We now have 25 specialist domestic violence courts and we are going to expand the number to more than 60 by April this year. In this particular area, the problem was too long treated as though it were peripheral to the concerns of the Home Office and law and order; it is now right at the centre of our concerns.

House of Lords Reform

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on reform of the House of Lords. Accompanying this statement is a detailed White Paper, which is available in the Vote Office. The White Paper has been informed by the excellent report of the Joint Committee on Conventions, which the other place and this House debated and approved on 16 and 17 January respectively.
	The White Paper's publication follows nine months of intensive discussion within Government and with the other parties. I have chaired cross-party talksthe first such Government-led talks to be held, I am told, for nearly 40 years. The cross-party group has met eight times since June. I am very grateful to those on the group for their work and constructive approach to this complex issue.
	The starting point for the cross-party talks was that each of the three main parties was committed by its 2005 manifesto to seeking reform of the Lords. My party, as well as pledging, without qualification, to remove the remaining hereditary peers, said that a
	reformed upper chamber must be effective, legitimate and more representative without challenging the primacy of the House of Commons.
	The Conservatives promised
	to seek a cross-party consensus for a substantially elected House of Lords
	and the Liberal Democrats to replace the Lords with a predominantly elected second chamber.
	In the cross-party talks, a significant degree of consensus has been found on several, but not all, the important issues. Where the Government have not agreed with the Opposition or the Liberal Democrats, they have done their best in the White Paper accurately to reflect the areas of disagreement.
	All members of the group were of one mind on the fundamental primacy of the Commons and on the fact that the House of Lords should be a complement to this place, not a rival to it. There was agreement that a reformed House should be partly appointed, partly electeda hybridconsisting of at least 20 per cent. of non party political members, and that it was essential that no political party should have a majority of the whole House of Lords. It was agreed that membership of the reformed House should reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom and its people and the range of religious opinion in the country. It was also agreed that the special arrangements for membership of the upper House of a limited number of hereditary peers should come to an end.
	The group decided that introducing reform over a long transitional period would be essential. But with opinion divided in all three parties, and each party committed to a free vote, we did not come to a view on the proportion of elected and appointed members, or on the precise method and timing of any elections, although all parties agreed that any elected element should be by a form of direct election.
	It is palpable that Lords reform has been unfinished business for at least 100 years. This is not a criticism of the work of the Members of the other place, many of whom give the nation great service and the benefit of their expertise and experience, but it is our judgmentshared by the other parties, as their manifestos showthat the status quo is no longer an option. However, we all accept that moving forward is difficult. Great passion is aroused on this issue in both Houses and all parties.
	Given that, the White Paper is self-evidently and unapologetically a compromise, both in terms of destination and of transition. I believe that the choice that we have is either to make progress on a scale and to a time scale of the kind indicated in the White Paper, or to see the whole exercise aborted altogether, in which case there would be no further progress on this matter for a generation.
	Time and again, fundamental reform of the House of Lords has failed because, for some, the best has become the enemy of the good. Deadlock this time round would be easy to achieve. The prize of progress means moving forward gradually and by consensus. The basis for consensus on a hybrid House already exists. All recent inquiries into the future of the Lordsincluding the royal commission, chaired by the noble Lord Wakeham, the Public Administration Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), and the cross-party Breaking the Deadlock grouphave come to this conclusion.
	The Government have used the White Paper to illustrate how a hybrid House might work, using a model in which 50 per cent. of the House is elected, and 50 per cent. is appointed: 30 per cent. from the political parties and 20 per cent. from those with no party political affiliation. In my view, this model would provide the most effective balance between election and appointment in a reformed House. However, there are myriad other views, and the free voteincluding by Ministerswill enable those views properly to be expressed.
	The White Paper proposes that the size of the House should be reduced to 540 Members. Elections would be held at the same time as elections to the European Parliament, and would use the same constituencies, but a different electoral system: that of the partially open list. One third would be elected at each election. The Church of England Bishops would continue to be represented.
	Should Parliament opt for a system in which appointments to the second Chamber continue, all appointments would be made by a new statutory appointments commission, assessing both suitability and propriety. The commission would be independent and report directly to Parliament. The right of the Prime Minister of the day to make appointments would end.
	The proposals in the White Paper would also break the link between the peerage and seats in Parliament. Members, including current Members of the House of Lords, would be able to resign their seats. Disqualification provisions for any Member of the Lords convicted of an offence would be brought into line with those in the Commons. All Members would be able to vote in general elections. The position of peers currently sitting in the House has been an important consideration, and we propose that no existing life peer should be forced to leave.
	Let me now turn to the procedure that the Government propose for the free vote in this House. The whole House will recall that when the free votes took place four years ago, there were eight options before it: five of themranging from abolition through 100 per cent. appointed to 100 per cent. electedwere put to Divisions. Every single option was voted down.
	Our system of voting in this House is well tried, and works to give a clear-cut decision on any straight yes/no choice. It is plainly essential that we use this system when it comes to determining the content of law. But the system is no goodit does not workfor indicating preferences. In mathematical terms, a binary system is not designed to elicit preferences and cannot do this job properly. Instead, the Government propose a system specifically designed to enable those voting in this House to come to a decision on the issue. Members will be invited to rank preferences in numerical order [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Members must allow the Leader of the House to make his statement. Of course, I will allow hon. Members to ask questions, and they can disagree with the Leader of the House then, if they so wish.

Jack Straw: The successful preference will be the one that gains at least half of all votes, after the successive elimination of the least successful choices. The Government propose three substantive votes, the first two of which will be held in the normal way. The first will be on whether there should be a second Chamber at all, and if the House decides that there should be a second Chamber, the second will be on whether there should be any further reform. If, and only if, there is an affirmative answer in both of those votes, the House will move to an alternative vote on preferences.
	The detailed arrangements for the alternative vote ballot would come under your direction, Mr Speaker. It is for the other place to decide what procedure it adopts. Although the alternative vote procedure is an unusual method of voting, a broadly similar approach has already been agreed by this House and the other place for choosing the Speaker of each House. I am aware that, as will no doubt be reflected in the questions, the doctrine of the dangerous precedent says that nothing should ever be done for the first time, but every one of the traditions that we cherish in this House was once an innovation. To allow the House proper time to consider the procedure, a resolution to give it effect will be put to the House a week before the substantive debate on composition. It is intended that the debate on composition, in which there will be free votes, will last for two days.
	I believe that, following the cross-party talks and the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions, the White Paper represents the best opportunity to make progress that we have had for many decades. As our manifesto says, there are many reasons why we should move ahead with reform of the House of Lordsto increase its effectiveness, to make it more representative of the United Kingdom and to increase its legitimacybut there is a wider issue, too. Through the process, we seek to strengthen Parliament by enhancing the way in which the Lords complement the work of the primary Chamber, and by doing that, our democracy as a whole will be better served. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Theresa May: May I begin by thanking the Leader of the House for giving me significant advance sight of his statement? Opposition Members approached discussions in the cross-party working group constructively, looking for consensus. We have always made it clear that we would support reforms that create an upper Chamber that is capable of challenging and revising legislation, that is democratic and accountable, and that is expert and independent. I note that in his list of reasons for reform, the Leader of the House did not mention democracy and independence.
	The upper House has been a thorn in the Government's side, in protecting ancient liberties such as the right to trial by jury. It is crucial that any change leaves it even more capable of acting as a check on the power of the Executive. Opposition Members want reform that strengthens Parliament, but the proposal does not do that. It puts political parties even more in control of the upper House, which risks losing the independence that has seen it defeat this Government 415 times. The right hon. Gentleman entered cross-party discussions looking for consensus. He has not achieved that, but will he confirm that, not for the first time, there is not even consensus in the Cabinet, and does he not agree that that loss of collective responsibility is a reflection of the Prime Minister's lost authority?
	The proposal is for a hybrid House, but when the House last voted on Lords reform, the Prime Minister said:
	a hybrid between the two is wrong and will not work. [ Official Report, 29 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 877.]
	What has made the Prime Minister change his mind, and what makes the Leader of the House think it will work this time?
	The Government propose that the political parties nominate 30 per cent. of the upper House, and that 50 per cent. be elected using a list system. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that a list system would encourage expert and independent candidates? With 80 per cent. of the House effectively appointed by the political parties, will the reforms not leave the House of Lords less independent and more under the control of political parties than it is today? Does not party patronage simply mean party control?
	The Leader of the House said that the reforms would need a long transitional periodlong, indeed. On these proposals, reform will not be complete until 2050quite an admission, given that the last White Paper was called Completing the Reform.
	Talking of long transitions, since 1997, on 21 separate Divisions on Lords reform, the Chancellor has never voted. Will the Leader of the House reassure us that the Chancellor's coronation will not be yet another block to reforming the other place?
	It is not just the reforms themselves that raise important constitutional questions, but the process of voting on them. The right hon. Gentleman recommends preferential voting. Why has he not referred this unprecedented proposal to the Procedure Committee or the Modernisation Committee? In his statement he said that a broadly similar approach had nevertheless been agreed for choosing the Speakers of both Houses. It has not. In the House the next Speaker will be elected by exhaustive ballots.
	Introducing a preferential voting system will create a dangerous precedent. Are Ministers willing to accept preferential votes on matters like tax rates or the replacement of Trident? Will Members' individual preferential votes be published? If, after the ballot, the House passes an option without a majority of first preferences, should there not be a confirmatory vote, otherwise how could the Government claim that the proposals reflected the will of the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in such circumstances, the Government would not be justified in resorting to the Parliament Act?
	This proposal does not [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I tell Mr. Bryant that he should be quiet. I asked Opposition Members to be quiet when the Leader of the House was speaking, and that courtesy should go to the shadow Leader of the House as well.

Theresa May: This proposal does not strengthen Parliament. We want a House of Lords elected by the many. The House as proposed would be selected by the few. Far from making the Lords more independent, the proposal puts it in the gift of political parties. Far from strengthening Parliament, it risks losing the present benefits of the Lords. Far from removing cronyism, it perpetuates it. It is a lowest common denominator solution that will satisfy no one.

Jack Straw: I can sum up the right hon. Lady's comments by saying that she wants consensus and she wants reform, but not yet. She has no conceivable proposals for securing that reform. I said in my statement that the issue was difficult and complex, and that if the House wants reform, it will require compromise and it will take time. I am not suggesting that the proposals made in the White Paper are the last word on the mattercertainly not. It will be the subject of a free vote by all parties.
	My suggestionit is just my suggestion, and because the Cabinet has a free vote as well, it is not endorsed by the Cabinet and I never suggested that it wasfor 50 per cent. is my suggestion, and I am happy to argue it through. However, if we have a preferential vote so that the House can come to a decision, and not end up with a train wreck as we did last time, it may well come to a different decision. On the basis of that different decision, we can introduce legislation which, I hope, can be the subject of the kind of constructive cross-party talks in which the right hon. Lady has happily engaged, although there was little reflection of that in the course of her comments.
	The right hon. Lady said that I did not mention democracy, but I did. One of the difficulties about the Lords at the moment is that, although it does a reasonable job, it is difficult for it to claim any kind of democratic mandate.

Nicholas Soames: Nonsense.

Jack Straw: It cannot claim any democratic mandate at all. We must take account of where the public are on the issue. An opinion poll published yesterday by the Hansard Society with a very large sample suggested that just 6 per cent. of the public support a wholly appointed Chamber and that more than 90 per cent. support an elected or partially elected Chamber. Even allowing for the normal margins of error, that poll suggests that the public are in one place, while some Members of this House and the other place are somewhere else.
	I do not accept for a second that the consequences of the suggestions that we make in our paper for a partially open list system will lead to what the right hon. Lady described as cronyism. One of the reasons why I happen to support a partially elected, partially appointed

Patrick McLoughlin: Closed list system.

Jack Straw: I am not suggesting a closed list system; we have listened and moved on. I can see the objections to a closed list system, which is why we have not suggested it. The shadow Chief Whip should at least accept that concession with good grace.
	I believe that more than 20 per cent. of Members should be appointed and that some of those appointments should be party political appointments, because all parties contain people of great expertise who are not part of the party machines, but who, subject to consideration as to both suitability and propriety, could make a good contribution in the other place.
	There will be a full debate on the voting proposal.  [ Interruption. ] This is a Government proposal, because the Government are responsible for ensuring good order in this House. The simple fact is that because the House was invited to say yes or no on seven choices last time, the House ended up looking very stupid and the matter ended in a train wreck.  [ Interruption. ] I realise that views are held with great passion on both sides of the House, which is fine. Those who oppose any change will have the opportunity to vote for no change.  [ Interruption. ] However, they are not entitled to vote for an electoral system that will wreck the possibility of reaching a decision.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that right hon. Members would settle down.

Jack Straw: The right hon. Lady said that we have agreed to change the system for electing the Speaker, and I am glad that she accepts that. She also said that we will have a series of exhaustive ballots, which means that she does not understand our proposal. By the way, if the House wants exhaustive ballots where over timeit will probably take three or four hourswe reduce the number of preferences from seven or eight to two before having a final vote, it is fine by me, but hon. Members must be willing to sit in their places for three or four hours while the process is conducted. By endorsing the new system for electing the Speaker, the right hon. Lady has accepted that the old system, by which hon. Members were invited to say yes or no to a number of choices, was highly defective.
	Finally, the right hon. Lady asked me to rule out the use of the Parliament Act. The issue of the Parliament Act does not arise in respect of these debates, because we are talking about the House indicating where the centre of gravity lies on reform of the Lords. Once we know that, we will be able to do something that I thought that she was in favour of, which is to implement not only our manifesto and the Liberal Democrat's manifesto, but her manifesto.

Tony Wright: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will succeed with these proposals, but I know that he deserves to. He has listened to the arguments; he has altered his position; and he has sought to produce a package that is designed to maximise agreement. It is now up to the House to decide whether we respond to that package. I particularly welcome the proposal that we finally separate out service in the second Chamber from the receipt of honours. If we had done that a long time ago, we would not be experiencing some of our present difficulties.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the consultations that I have had with him and for the important report, which influenced me, by the Select Committee that he chaired. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who say that they are committed to reform reflect on that report, which was published a couple of years ago.

Simon Hughes: Unlike the rather grudging response from the Conservative party, which is trying to pretend to be modernised and new, Liberal Democrat Members, as I hope that the Government know, welcome this serious attempt to complete a process of reform that began nearly 100 years agonobody can say that the completion of the task is not seriously overdue. We welcome the constructive and serious talks and the way in which the Leader of the House has sought to engage all those with an interest at all stages in proceedings.
	Liberal Democrats have always been committed to a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber.

Peter Lilley: Not all of them.

Simon Hughes: That is the way in which we will vote. Perhaps there are one or two unreconstructed colleagues, and I anticipate that their views will be reflected in contributions by Members from other parties later today.
	In a modern democracy in the 21st century, both Houses of Parliament must have elected people. The only position that we think is justifiable is that both Houses must have predominantly elected peopleMembers should all be elected in this House, and at least 80 per cent. of Members should be elected in the second Chamber.
	We have been willing to compromise in the interests of reaching an agreement. I think that we agree that there should be a two-Chamber Parliament, that there should be a stronger House of Commons and a strong House of Lords, that we must legislate and scrutinise better and that the primacy of the Commons will never be challenged by the Lords. That is where Governments stand and fall. We pay tribute to the fact that the House of Lords has done a good job up to now, but reform does not mean that it will do any less wellwe believe that it will do better.
	I have some brief questions for the Leader of the House. Does the Leader of the House accept that the proposal to have three in 10 of the new Members of the House of Lords as party political nominees flies in the face of current public opinion, which is that we should reduce patronage and not increase it? Does he accept that the proposal to keep prime ministerial nominations absolutely flies in the face of recent views about the rights of Prime Ministers? It would be better if that patronage were removed, so that everybody goes through the same appointment process. Labour's commitment to get rid of hereditary peers should be stuck to, because the existence of hereditary peers after we have had elections would be a clear anomaly. Finally, when we have electionsas we willeverybody should be entitled to express a preference anywhere in the United Kingdom for the candidate of their choice in the place of their choice. The list system is not a way to enhance democracy, but a way to reduce it.

Jack Straw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comment about the cross-party talks. People outside this House might be forgiven for thinking that there were two sets of cross-party talks, but there was only one in which the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and her colleagues participated constructively and in which we were clear about where there is agreement and where there is disagreement. The Conservative party needs to make up its mind about whether it was serious at the last election in committing itself to a substantially elected second Chamber and reform of the Lords. It needs to embrace this process or something like it, if it wants to move forward. Otherwise the public will conclude that this is a charade, because the Conservative party is so divided that it does not have the bottle to move forward.

Theresa May: Fifty-fifty is not substantially elected.

Jack Straw: The right hon. Lady says that 50:50 is not substantially elected. This is only my view, not necessarily that of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I want to be able to have a system whereby their views can be expressed and have some effect. What was profoundly unfair about the last system was that although it looked as though there was a greater level of support for an 80 per cent. or a 100 per cent. elected Chamber than for the alternatives, that bit the dust along with all the other proposals, including those which were the direct opposite. That was a result of the absurdity of using that system.
	On the question of whether there is to be any appointed party element, we have all agreed that there should be a transition period, although there is a debate about how long it should be. There are likely to be some appointments of a party nature during that transition period, so we have to accept that there will be such appointments. The important thing is that they should take place in a manner that commands public confidence. That is why we have agreed with the Wakeham commission proposal that the statutory appointments commission should determine issues of suitability as well as those of propriety. Of course the Prime Minister would have the right to make nominations, but without any guarantee that they would be accepted by the commission.
	The hon. Gentleman's most important point concerned strengthening our democracy and strengthening Parliament. There are those who argue for no change on the grounds that any increase in activity or assertiveness by the other place is bound to diminish the activity, assertiveness and powers of this place. I do not buy that. The longer I am in government, the more I believe in a strong Parliament. We have strong government in this country and across the western world. Strong government is better government the more that Parliamentboth Chamberscan exercise proper scrutiny over what the Government are doing.

Gerald Kaufman: May I remind my right hon. Friend that when the manifesto on which he and I were elected to this House two years ago said
	we will ... allow a free vote on the composition of the House,
	it did not go on to say that we will impose a three-line Whip to force Labour Members to accept an option that they do not wish to accept. Will he give me a categorical assurance that when this matter comes before the House of Commons, Labour Members will not have to choose, by voting for the manifesto, to vote against the Whip?

Jack Straw: The manifesto was clear in saying that
	we will ... allow a free vote on the composition of the House
	but it was silent on the issue of procedure. Given the farcethe train wreckthat was produced on the last occasion, it is the duty of a Government commanding a majority in this House to ensure that a procedure by which it can come to a decision is achieved. That is the sole purpose of the alternative vote procedure. It is used inside the Labour party; I gather that it is even used inside the Conservative party for selecting candidates.

Theresa May: indicated dissent.

Jack Straw: The right hon. Lady is shaking her head; we can exchange billets-doux about that. Certainly, the exhaustive ballot is used. If the House wants an exhaustive ballot, we can have cross-party talks about that and achieve it, but it would take a very long time and produce almost an identical result to an alternative vote, because, for those who understand these systems, an alternative vote is simply a compressed version of an exhaustive ballot.
	One of the documents that very much informed me was the report of the royal commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord Wakeham. My right hon. Friend, who played a distinguished part in that, will know that recommendation 69 proposed, to different degrees, a hybrid House.

Patrick Cormack: Speaking for the largest cross-party group in both Houses, which includes a sizeable number of Liberal Democrats from the upper House and Liberal Democrats from this House, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman that what he proposes is a constitutional outrage? Will he think again about his answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), and, given that we are to have a free vote on everything else, will he give all Labour Members a free vote on this monstrous proposal for a football coupon ballot?

Jack Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying, in traditionally extravagant language, and as he said in the papers today, that he regards my proposal as a dangerous precedent. It may not have occurred to him, but this House is about changethat is what we are here for.  [Interruption.] Well, not all the time, but what is the purpose of laws if not sometimes to change things? I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the Cambridge philosopher said about the principle of the dangerous precedent:
	you should not now do an admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one.
	He goes on to say:
	Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.
	I note that none of those who have raised objections to the use of the alternative vote are raising objections as regards its meritsall they are saying is that they do not like it because it is something new and/or it could lead to the House making a decision. However, all three parties are committed to the House coming to a decision, and there will be not one but two opportunities, on the Divisions that will be put before the House, for the hon. Gentleman and his friends on both sides of the House to exercise their choice, through a straight yes/no ballot, on whether there should be any reform at all. He can vote yes or no, and if he wins, that is the end of the matter. If the vote were in favour of reform, then, yes, we would proceed to an alternative vote. At the top of the ballot, as is shown in the appendix to the White Paper, is the option of an all-appointed Chamber. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's opinion. If he wins, that is what we will do; if he loses, that is called democracy.

Mr. Speaker: I call the Father of the House.

Alan Williams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The Leader of the House knows from previous exchanges that I oppose a fully elected House of Lords because I believe that at some stage it will inevitably flex its democratic muscles and challenge this House. However, that leads us into a quandary, because it is exactly what the Government have recognised but are not willing to say. They have therefore retreated into hybridity. Hybridity may be the start of a process but it is not sustainable in itself. Whatever the mix at the start20 per cent., 50 per cent. or 80 per cent.at some time, and then again, the elected majority in that House will be defeated by the votes of the non-elected, and inevitably the pressure will then be on to take the next step. Hybridity means a fully elected House of Lords, but not just yet.

Jack Straw: rose

Alan Williams: I am sorryI have only one more point to make.
	I welcome the Leader of the House's suggested change in the appointments system, but I find it utterly bizarre that he can put to the House as a fait accompli this strange new voting system. Voting is a decision for the House of Commons, and if one is going to introduce a precedent in decision makingthe election of the Speaker is not a suitable precedentthen it should be on a free vote of the House of Commons.

Jack Straw: On the last point, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reflect on what is proposed in the time between now and the main vote. This system is proposed because we had a train wreck last time. I do not think that my right hon. Friend was one of those who was trying to secure that, but there were certainly some who were trying to ensure that no decision whatsoever was made, and they got what they wanted. That is not what this House is for; nor did it enhance its reputation one iota. All that is proposed is a system with which all of us are familiar in other circumstances, whereby we are offered options and list them in order of preference. That is because we must not find ourselves in a situation whereby the best becomes the enemy of the good. We could have an eliminating ballot but that would take hours.
	Is not it better for us to indicate our preference? We opt for our first preference and, if that does not command a majority, we go for our second preference and so on. After all, the old system sought to achieve that but it was profoundly unfairindeed, it was fixed so that people could not exercise a second or third preference properly because gamesmanship applied. The order in which the ballots were put determined the outcome of the result. That is unfair and all hon. Members should reflect on whether they wish to produce a farce like that again.
	I understand my right hon. Friend's concern. All those of us who have been in the House for a long time do not move away from established procedures except with care. However, I believe that, in this very specific and particular circumstance, we must adopt the system that I have outlined or something remarkably similar.
	My right hon. Friend objects to a fully elected HouseI, too, am not in favour of that. However, he claimed that a hybrid House would automatically lead to a fully elected House over time. I do not accept that. Powers are central to the issue. Chapter 5, page 22 of the White Paper provides much information about international comparisons, which show that there is no necessary connection between the composition of a House and the powers that it exercises. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats cited the Canadian Senate this morning. The Canadian Senate is all-appointed but very powerful. Equally, there are all-elected Chambers that lack power. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that we could legislate to cement the powers over, for example, money, supply and taxation at the same time as we changed composition.

Kenneth Clarke: May I congratulate the Leader of the House on having the courage to take up the subject again and giving the House the opportunity of resolving the matter at last? However, will he ensure that the Government do not pull the plug on the whole exercise again if a majority, on a free vote, votes for some detail of which the Prime Minister or the Government do not approve? Does he accept that we need to resolve the matter in this Parliament if possible? Does he also accept that, in any other European democracy, it would be regarded as absurd that a substantial number of legislators in the upper House of a Parliament were there through appointment by the Prime Minister, appointment by political parties, sale by political parties or anybody else, or appointment by an establishment quango secretly discussing who is suitable? Does he agree that the British are ready for more democracy in their political system?

Jack Straw: The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is yes. I am grateful for his support and his recognition that the exercise is tricky. Its purpose is to enable the House to reach a conclusion, after which the Government can legislate. I say to other Conservative Members that I would have thought that it was wise for them to recognise that the exercise is an important opportunity for the Conservative party, if it wishes to get into government, to get the matter out of the way.

Mike Hall: I think that my right hon. Friend has got the matter the wrong way round. We should examine the functions of the House of Lords and then determine its composition. He has produced a breakfast at which even my dog Max would balk.

Jack Straw: We have had the debate about functions and composition. Some Labour Membersperhaps my hon. Friend is onebelieve that we should end up in a logical trap, whereby we cannot discuss composition until we have discussed powers and we cannot discuss powers until we have discussed composition. We are acting in the manner that our manifesto laid down.

Alan Beith: I welcome and encourage the Leader of the House's resistance to the siren voiceswhether old Conservative, old Labour or even old Liberal Democratthat say, Don't do anything because the House of Lords might acquire some greater moral authority. Is he aware that I meet fewif anypeople who are worried about the House of Lords becoming more powerful, but many who are worried that the Executive are already powerful and may become more so? They welcome a second Chamber that forces the House of Commons to think again about issues such as civil liberty and personal freedom.

Jack Straw: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I have said previously that although, when I was Home Secretary and sponsored a large amount of legislation, I was irritated by the other place rejecting my proposals, the result of that process was, on the whole, improved legislation.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House explain why we have such an incredibly long run-in period to any improved version of the House of Lords? Why cannot we simply move to a fully democratically elected second Chamber, if that is what we are to have, instead of the dog's breakfast of appointments, bishops and election on a party list system?

Jack Straw: This is an opportunity to do what my hon. Friend suggests. I hope that he will support the process that enables us to reach a conclusion. He will then have the opportunity to vote for a House that is 100 per cent. elected. When legislation is introduced, he can push for a much quicker transition period.

Nicholas Winterton: I fully share the views of the Father of the House and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). The Leader of the House was unconstitutional when he said that the Government must order the procedures of the House. It is not up to the Government to do thatit is up to the House of Commons. I hope that he agrees that the abominable procedure for voting that he proposes should be put to the Procedure Committee or even the Modernisation Committee, which he chairs. It would better go to the Procedure Committee so that the matter can be properly considered. Is not he presenting a proposal to manipulate the House of Commons to achieve a Government objective?

Jack Straw: Far from it. A manipulation of the defective system led to the train wreck last time. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I note that none of the criticisms of the proposal has included a serious objection to its method.

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise that the House must make a decision. Would not we fail in our duty as a House if we did not agree a procedure that ensured that we reached a decision? If we do not do that, will not we play into the hands of those who posture about being in favour of radical reform but secretly want no change?

Jack Straw: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes.

Alex Salmond: The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru have recently taken a close interest in the complexion of the House of Lords. Is the Leader of the House aware that the television game show, Who Wants to be a Millionaire has a 50:50 option? With all the assembled talents of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties, how can the Leader of the House believe that he has reached consensus on such a concoction of nonsense? Will he answer a few simple questions about the hybrid House that he proposes? Why call it the House of Lords? Will the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 still apply to nominated Members? Why is there a guaranteed place for Church of England bishops as opposed to people of any other denomination or religion? At any point in the discussions, did anybody present the intellectually rigorous arguments for a fully elected House of Lords or, indeed, for its abolition?

Jack Straw: There will be a free vote by three of the parties. I hope that the SNP and Plaid will also have a free vote. We can then reach a decision.
	We have decided, since we will not know the composition of the House unless and until we reach a decision about that, to leave the name until we know the nature of the House.
	We propose that there should be a greater facility for wider representation of religious and faith groups. If there is a movement for the disestablishment of the Church of England, that is fine. I do not regard that as a priority. Meanwhile, we should accept that it is a second-order issue. If those of us who believe in reform reach the stage that I have outlined, we will have gone a long way.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Leader of the House pointed out that, on the last occasion when we considered the matter, an unholy alliance formed between those who felt that their perfect options had not been accepted and therefore voted against all others, and those who wanted no change, which delivered no result. I perceive the development of another unholy alliance. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) claims that the proposal does not fulfil her demand for greater democracy, and my hon. Friends who do not want an elected House of Lords claim that it does not meet their demands. Will he try to demonstrate that the proposal is the only mechanism whereby we can achieve the result that most Members of this House want? It will enable us to achieve the reform, which successive Governments of all parties since 1908, have failed to deliver.

Jack Straw: I will do my best, and I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's support. It is entirely legitimate for those who want no change at all to vote for that. It is unacceptable, however, for those in that position to seek to use a wholly defective voting system to ensure that those who want some change are denied the opportunity to come to a decision.

Nicholas Soames: As the Leader of the House knows, I am generally regarded as a standard bearer for reform and in the white heat of modernisation. It is a mark of good government, however, to know when to leave things alone. There is absolutely no demand for this change or reform anywhere in the country. The House of Lords fulfils its tasks extremely well. What is the point of proceeding with this arrant nonsense?

Jack Straw: The point of proceeding with it is that the British public are not in quite the same position as the hon. Gentleman. More to the point, his party does not share his view either; he stood at the last election on a manifesto proposal that happens to be even more radical than ours.

Andrew Love: I welcome the White Paper, and congratulate my right hon. Friend on its terms, which need to be debated in the House. After the appalling introduction to that report by Her Majesty's official Opposition, may I plead for the House to have a reasonable time to debate the issues? My right hon. Friend talked about finding the centre of gravity, which everyone recognises is incredibly important. We will only be able to do that, however, if we have proper and effective debate before coming to a decision.

Jack Straw: Yes; I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. There will be a day to determine and come to a vote on the procedure, and about a week later a two-day debate will take place on the reform and composition of the House of Lords.

Richard Shepherd: The preamble to the Parliament Act 1911 held out a better prospect than anything offered by the Leader of the House today [Interruption.] I am just anticipating a situation that will come about. My point is that the demand for primacy of the Commons does not wash if the House of Lords is elected. The central proposition of a democratic system is that those who make the laws should be accountable to those who bear the laws. His proposals, and his extraordinary voting system, defeat that. Some Members of this House will welcome another House that can bring to check the dreams and ambitions of the Crown in Downing street and the Executive here.

Jack Straw: I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of or against a fully elected Chamber. That is his opinion, however, and he is fully entitled to exercise it and, under the voting system suggested by the Government, gain the maximum support. The House would then come to a decision.

Martin Linton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his clear set of proposals but on having the courage to recommend a way of taking the decision that will lead to a clear outcome. Does he agree that opposition to a preferential vote is a disguised way of blocking reform and lacks candour, given that all parties in the House select their candidates and leaders through various forms of preferential voting?

Jack Straw: I agree entirely. Were the Conservative party really committed to reform, it would have no alternative but to back the system of voting that I propose.

John Thurso: May I welcome in general the progress made by the Leader of the House? My preference has always been for a wholly or predominantly elected House, but I would accept a lesser number of elected to make progress. Does he agree that the critical issue is to get the mechanics of the election right, and particularly to have regionally-biased constituencies to complement the population bias of this House?

Jack Straw: I look forward to getting to those sunlit uplands where we can have a serious debate about the electoral system. As I said to the Opposition Chief Whip, however, I have sought to show flexibility, and let us hope that that can continue.

Jane Kennedy: I hesitate to contradict my right hon. and dear Friend, but the House is entitled to reject all the options, which was what happened last time. It was not a train wreck or an unholy alliance. The fact is that there was not a majority for any one of the proposals made. Trying to change the voting procedure to bring about a decision smacks of not liking the original set of decisions taken by the House. He knows that I have the highest regard for him, but could he please divert his prodigious talents and enormous energies to some other subject?

Jack Straw: My right hon. and dear Friendthe admiration is mutualis right in some respects, particularly towards the end of her remarks. If she wants to vote against all the options, however, there will be an opportunity, on a traditional yes/no vote, to vote for no change. The voting system is entirely different from last time. If the House wants change, however, it must indicate which preference commands a majority. There are only two ways of doing that: through an exhaustive ballot, which I do not mind but which would take far too long; or through its equivalent, which is the alternative vote.

William Cash: As someone who has been in favour of a directly elected Chamber for about a decade, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he accepts that basing that on a change of functions and different constituencies is legitimate, but that going for a system that is intrinsically undemocraticnot only in the procedure adopted for voting in this House but in the party list system to which he has referred with respect to voting outsideis not legitimate and fatally undermines his case?

Jack Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman is agreeing in part with the proposals, but exercising some disagreement about the electoral system. Incidentally, I congratulate him on not mentioning Europe in his question for the first time in a very long while. I look forward to his support for the process that we propose, as he can then exercise his vote and, say, support 80 per cent. or 100 per cent. elected.

Martin Salter: Out of affection for the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I will mention Europe. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that although 48 of the 67 second chambers in the world are largely or wholly elected, including in advanced democracies such as Australia, Switzerland, Austria, Ireland and the Netherlands, their powers are almost wholly subordinate to those of the primary chambers concerned? Does not history and experience expose the flaws in the argument that a more democratic House of Lords, as promised in our and other parties' manifestos, would automatically challenge the primacy of the Commons?

Jack Straw: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes; he is absolutely right.

Edward Leigh: Does the Leader of the House agree that there is no point in having clones of MPs in the other place: people who climb the greasy pole in order to become Under-Secretary for paperclips, and never vote against their own party? I know that he does not agree with me on elected Members, but does he at least agree that there is some merit in making those people like congressmennot MPswho serve in a kind of senate, cannot become Ministers and therefore maintain their independence of spirit?

Jack Straw: I agree with almost all that the hon. Gentleman said. The cross-party group has agreed to reflect the recommendations of the Wakeham commission precisely to ensure that new Members, whether elected or appointed, do not become clones of MPs, that they are elected for a single term that runs for a long timewe suggest 15 yearsand that there is a quarantine period after the expiry of their normal 15-year term of, say, five years, before such individuals could stand for election to this place. By that time, I think, their ambition will have been exhausted.

Clive Efford: May I caution my right hon. Friend against turning the voting procedure into the issue? He seems to be suggesting that a vote against what he is proposing is a vote against any form of reform. He should put an option for a voting procedure to the House.
	There is one issue on which there is unanimity among Labour Members, and that is that the remaining hereditary peers should be removed. Any procedure that my right hon. Friend puts to the House must allow a separate vote on that issue.

Jack Straw: I will certainly take that into account. I will talk to my hon. Friend about whether we should have a specific vote on the removal of hereditaries, and then another vote on further reform.

George Young: I welcome what I perceive to be a genuine attempt by the Leader of the House to unblock the logjam and give the House an opportunity to resolve the issue one way or another quite soon. Will he confirm that when we last discussed it, the proposal that commanded the least support was for a wholly appointed Chamber, which is where we are now? If the views of this House are to have primacy, it must be right for us to consider that again.

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and I am grateful to him. Just 245 Members voted for a 100 per cent. appointed House of Lords, compared with the 281 who voted for an 80 per cent. elected House.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move to the next business.

BILL PRESENTED

Health and Safety (offences)

Mr. Wayne David presented a Bill to amend section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Impact on Carers)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), I have a statement to make. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to exercise my discretion to allow him to present his motion, in view of the forthcoming judicial review of the process by which the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence developed guidance on the use of drugs for treating Alzheimer's disease. I have agreed to exercise my discretion to allow him to present his motion, but he should be sparing in any direct reference to the specific matter that is subject to judicial review.

Greg Clark: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to consider the impact of proposed drugs and treatments on carers and patients when assessing their cost effectiveness; and for connected purposes.
	I am pleased to see that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) is present. It was very kind of her to come.
	This is a simple Bill to correct what I regard as a serious flaw in the way in which NICE evaluates proposed new drugs. At present it is required to balance the benefits to the patient against the costs to the national health service and the personal social services budget. On the face of it that would seem an extremely reasonable way of operating, until we consider that the benefits of many new treatments fall as much on carers as on the patients themselves. The requirement under which NICE operates is too restrictive in that regard.
	Let me make clear at the outset that I am not saying NICE should be allowed to breach the public-expenditure constraints under which it operates. Rightly, NICE is there to take a view, given the current level of resources for the NHS. I think, however, that if it were able to take account of the costs and the benefits to the quality of life of carers, a more sensible and rational balance could be achieved.
	I have no objection at all to the existence of NICE. I think it essential for the national health service to benefit from an independent body that is able properly to consider and weigh up the costs and benefits of different treatments. But NICE operates under directions from the Secretary of State, and those directions are very clear: it is required to take into account the clinical costs and benefits of proposed treatments. I think we could change that definition, and I think the Secretary of State for Health could change the directions that she gives to NICE.
	Let me give an example of an application of the guidance. Consideration was given to licensing a new class of drugs that can treat Alzheimer's disease. The drugs were assessed by NICE, and the most recent judgment was given in November this year in response to various appeals. The clinical effectiveness of the drugs is not in doubt, but they were withheld, and the recommendation is that they should continue to be withheld from people displaying the symptoms of mild Alzheimer's disease. That is not because they were not effective in slowing the progression of the disease, alleviating some of the symptoms and allowing people to have more self-confidence and to engage in everyday tasks. They were held not to be cost-effective, although the cost is about 2.50 a day.
	The key part of the appraisal that is missing relates to the impact on the cost of carers. The final appraisal document leading to the most recent NICE judgment states:
	The Committee noted that the relevant NICE guidance on performing economic evaluations states that 'the evaluation should be conducted from the perspective of the NHS and PSS decision maker... The Committee therefore concluded that it would not be appropriate to include carer costs'.
	One of the principal effects of Alzheimer's disease is on carers for sufferers from that dreadful disease. The evidence is overwhelming. According to a recent survey, 72 per cent. of carers and sufferers felt that their symptoms were improved by the application of these drugs. It is also the case, crucially, that on average an hour a day of hands-on caring time was saved if the drugs were administered.
	I believe that the minimum wage is currently 5.35 an hour. If the value of an hour's caring time were valued at the same rate as the national minimum wage, the benefit to carers would be twice the daily cost of the drugsand that is leaving aside the effect on patients themselves. It is at least arguable that an evaluation that was allowed to consider the effects on carers might come up with a different conclusion.
	I said that the evaluation did not take into account the effect on the quality of life of carers. Of course, that is significant too. In his recent review of social care for the King's Fund, Sir Derek Wanless described the extra caring burden as producing
	anxiety, depression and psychiatric illness, increased susceptibility to physical illness, lowered social functioning, increased rates of chronic diseases during episodes of caring and general negative impacts on physical well-being.
	The effects on carers deserve to be taken into account, and could well make a difference to the evaluation.
	I am not alone in concluding that we need to broaden the scope within which NICE is constrained to operate. As part of its consideration of the appeal, NICE asked five independent experts to comment on the evaluation process. Professor John O'Brien, of the Institute of Ageing and Health at Newcastle university, told NICE:
	The economic model fails to take into account many significant benefits of the drugs, for example reduced carer time in supervising patients with dementia... to use this as the sole basis for decision making in this case remains a fundamental flaw.
	All five experts were of the same view: that the current NICE methodology was flawed.
	In his review, Sir Derek Wanless said:
	the burden on informal carers is particularly acute with dementia care.
	That cost, he said, required greater attention. During the last Parliament, the House's own Health Committee concluded in one of its reports:
	we recommend that NICE should consider the wider societal costs and advantages of particular treatments.
	There are 290,000 people with Alzheimer's disease in England and Wales, more than 500 in each of our constituencies. Everyone knows a family with a member who suffers from that cruel disease, and everyone knows that, devastating though the consequences are for the sufferer, the effects on carers are even more distressing. It is painful enough for people to go through the process of seeing a loved one such as a father, a mother, a husband or a close friend suffering and, before their eyes, becoming a different person from the person they had known all their lives. That is a harrowing experience, the like of which most of us will never go through. However, for the carers of those people there is also a practical effect: their lives are transformed, as they become, effectively, full-time carers.
	We owe it to such people, who do heroic work on behalf of all of us by looking after their loved ones, to make sure that their role is recognised and respected in the evaluation of new treatments that come before NICE which can make a difference to Alzheimer's and many other diseases.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Greg Clark, Mike Penning, Mr. Jeremy Hunt. Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Mr. Mark Field and Mr. Adam Holloway.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (impact on Carers)

Greg Clark accordingly presented a Bill to require the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to consider the impact of proposed drugs and treatments on carers and patients when assessing their cost effectiveness; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed [Bill 59].

Opposition Day
	  
	[5th allotted day]

Al-Yamamah Arms Agreement

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Vincent Cable: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the Serious Fraud Office's (SFO) ongoing investigation into the sale by BAE Systems plc of a military air traffic control system to Tanzania and other arms-related inquiries; further notes that the SFO has ceased its investigation into BAE Systems plc and Saudi Arabia; calls for an independent inquiry into the reasons for the ending of the SFO investigation of the Saudi Arabian export sales; requests that there be laid before this House any papers or reports held by the Comptroller and Auditor General relating to the Al Yamamah arms agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that have been prepared for committees of this House but not yet laid before it or published; and reaffirms the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
	I think that this will be a wide-ranging debate on the whole al-Yamamah saga, but that it will focus specifically on the Government's decision to discontinue the investigation into BAE Systems last month.
	The position of the Liberal Democrat party is that the Government's decision has done enormous damage, which has undermined the rule of law and Britain's reputation within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as a country that applies international law. It has also undermined both our reputation in the developing worldwhere the Government, through the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development in particular, lecture on corruptionand that of honest, good British companies which are trying to apply the law, whether in relation to financial services or manufacturing. It has also undermined the position of the House because of the anomalous situation in respect of the unpublished Public Accounts Committee report of 15 years ago, which, I understand, no Member presentincluding you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Chairman of the Committeehas ever read.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is right; I have not read it, but let me explain the history. My predecessor as Chairman of the Committeewho was, of course, in the minority Labour partyhad a private hearing with the senior Conservative member and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Comptroller and Auditor General has told me that during that private hearing no evidence whatsoever of corruption on the part of the Ministry of Defence was found.  [Interruption.] Well, because the National Audit Office is concerned with the Government and not private companies, there was no discussion of any corruption or alleged corruption by anybody else. Therefore, there is nothing in that report that should alarm the House or lead it to believe that any aspect of the British Government was corrupt.

Vincent Cable: As my hon. Friends just commented from a sedentary position, in that case there is absolutely nothing to be lost from publishing it. Moreover, I understand that The Daily Telegraph has reported this there was a second report in 1997, which updated the previous one and is more relevant to the account the hon. Gentleman describes, so why cannot that be published either?
	In proceeding with my argument, I wish first to pay tribute to some of the non-governmental organisations that have brought this issue to the light of day, particularly Transparency International, the Campaign Against Arms Trade and The Corner House. I also pay tribute to Members of all parties who have tried to open up this debate. In that regard, I shall start by mentioning the debate in the other place last week led by Baroness Williams. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) has made a major contribution in his role on the PAC and through his ten-minute Bill. An excellent Adjournment debate was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). Over the years, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has persistently pursued the issue of corruption and BAE Systems. Pertinent questions have also been asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
	There has been consistent interest in this issue among not only Liberal Democrat Members, but Labour Members. I can refer back as far as the late Robin Cook who in his attempt to introduce an ethical foreign policy repeatedly ran into a brick wall called BAE Systems. He recorded with some frustration in his diaries that:
	The Chairman of BAe Systems appeared to have the key to the garden door of No. 10.
	Other Members have also pursued the matter. I single out the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), who has tried to do so on a multi-party basis, and the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), among others.
	I hope that we can also draw the Conservatives into this big tent because they frequently argue their belief in the rule of law. We know that there is some embarrassment over this matterand events of the past few weeks have reminded us why that is so. It was revealed in the  Financial Times that one of the names on the Swiss bank accounts that were being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office was Wafiq Said, who is well known. He is a long-standing, loyal and committed supporter of Oxford university and the Conservative party, and in his time he was, I believe, a close business associate of Mr. Jonathan Aitken, who played a key role in the al-Yamamah affairas people rememberas a Defence Minister, sandwiched between periods when I believe that he was a paid servant of the Saudi Government with an association with Prince Mohammed bin Fahd.
	A few weeks ago, there was a little reported piece of news that the authorities in Gibraltar had decided to grant residency status to Sir Mark Thatcher, waiving their normal rules about people with criminal records. He is now able to enjoy his retirement unmolested by the Inland Revenue, which might otherwise have been particularly interested in how he acquired his personal fortune. We know from the testimony of Mohammed Khilewi and from the large amount of documentation that he brought from Saudi Arabia, and from a deposition in this House made by Tam Dalyell when he was a Member which was based on American and BAE sources, that that fortune was acquired when he was resident at No. 10 Downing street on the basis of the al-Yamamah contract.
	However, those documents are small fry. There is an even more important set of documents that briefly appeared in the National Archives, after it had been been unintentionally deposited there by the Department of Trade and Industry. Fortunately, it was copied by the Campaign Against Arms Trade before it was retrieved by the Government. It described the bitter battle that raged in Whitehall in the mid to late 1980s when the then Prime Minister and Michael Heseltine were fighting to ensure that there should be a taxpayers' loan guarantee of the al-Yamamah contract worth something in the order of 1.5 billionor 2.8 billion at present prices. That was ferociously opposed by the Treasury, the Bank of England and the then Department of Energy as being wholly contrary to British interests and as putting seriously at risk British taxpayers' money. We do not know because none of us has read it, but I suspect that that was one of the elements addressed in the PAC report that we are not allowed to see.
	Let me bring the arguments up to date by dealing with the two big sets of unresolved issues that have emerged since the Attorney-General's statement of 14 December. There are two groups of questions that we need to pursue. First, was there a secure basis for investigation by the SFO? We need to remember that the investigation was pursued by, I think, 18 officers over several years, and that it had at last identified two sets of key bank accounts leading to the sources of the inquiry. The inquiry, led by a professional prosecutor, had been advised that it could proceed by its silk, Mr. Tim Langdale QC. The head of the SFO has publicly stated that he believed that there were very good grounds for proceeding with the inquiry.
	On the strength of reading the papers for several hours, the Attorney-General came to the conclusion that the case was unlikely to succeed. How is that reconciled with the Attorney-General's acknowledgement toward the end of the debate last week in the other place that
	the SFO contemplated inviting BAE and certain BAE executives to plead guilty to certain charges?[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 2007; Vol. 689, c. 380.]
	Can the Ministers deconstruct the phrase contemplated inviting? My understanding is that BAE and certain of its executives were so invited. Were they, or were they not? Was a plea bargain offered, or not? If there was a plea bargain, what is the basis for arguing that there was no legal case? What is the precise position of the Ministry of Defence police, who were separately pursuing an inquiry into the role of MOD officials, who apparently were aware of the offences being committed, and apparently supported them? Has that inquiry been discontinued? Finally on the broad issue of the investigation, it is reported in the press today that the Attorney-General has launched an inquiry into the SFO's effectiveness in pursuing bribery cases. Is that correct? That is a little like somebody who has just escaped from Dartmoor demanding an inquiry into prison security.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his usual, gracious way. Has it occurred to him that an alternative explanation might be that the SFO was delighted to be let off the hook by the Government's decision because it was being very slow and inefficient, and in two and a half years it got absolutely nowhere in pursuing this casepossibly because there was nowhere to get?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is rather clutching at straws. If there were any hint that that was the problem, the head of the SFO would surely have indicated that he did not have reservations about the eventual decision.
	Let me move on to the other issue, which, in many ways, is more serious: national security. I am one of those Members of the House who, in an earlier incarnation

John Spellar: Can the hon. Gentleman, who has been speaking for some 11 minutes, tell us whether he thinks it a good or a bad idea to sell planes to Saudi Arabia? Secondly, not once has he mentioned all the jobs that the contract has created for ordinary workers in this country. Does he have no interest in or concern about that issue?

Vincent Cable: Yes, the issue of jobs is of course important, and it does concern me and I will return to it. However and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not relevant to the anti-bribery case and is specifically precluded by the convention. There is another issue, which I hope that he will face: whether he believes, however important employment is, that a situation in which jobs are subsidised or underwritten by the taxpayer, underpinned by corruption and subject to blackmail by the customer is sustainable. That said, jobs are clearly important and I will return to that theme.
	Let me turn, as I said, to national security. I am one of those Members who have signed the Official Secrets Act and who worked alongside the security services in an earlier job, so I have a great deal of respect for that Act and those services, and we should take very seriously any advice on national security that they give us. The problem here is not the security services, but how their advice has been used. The Attorney-General said in his original statement that
	the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Defence Secretaries ... have expressed the clear view that continuation of the investigation would cause serious damage to UK/Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic co-operation.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2006; Vol. 687, c. 1712.]
	The following day, three broadsheets were briefed, apparently by the head of the Secret Intelligence Service himself, who rejected the assertion that the Saudis would sever links and said that he had refused to sign a dossier stating that MI6 endorsed this assertion in advance. Subsequently, and understandably in view of that, the Government diluted their argumentso much so that, at the end of the debate in the other place last week, the Attorney-General was reduced to producing the following, utterly anodyne comment:
	The SIS has authorised me to say that it is clear about the importance of the Saudi counterterrorist effort to the UK.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 2006; Vol. 689, c. 379.]
	Well, we can all agree with that.
	One of two conclusions must emerge. The Prime Minister has done what he did in the case of Iraq, which was to exaggerate and distort the advice received from the security services; alternatively and much more alarmingly, he was right, and the Saudi authorities, who are supposed to be our allies, are threatening us with terrorism.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend has kindly acknowledged the debate that took place on 24 January, in which I questioned the plausibility of the claim regarding the national security context in which the decision was taken. Surely Ministers need to demonstrate the plausibility of the view that the Saudis would not wish to co-operate, given that al-Qaeda sees them as one of its main targets.

Vincent Cable: One practical way in which the Minister for the Middle East, who I think will be speaking next, could help us is by giving some indication of how the advice from the Saudi Government was received. If it was a formal demarche from the Saudi authorities, that is of a very different order from the British ambassador's having tea with one of his contacts and passing on his impression of what might be the case. It would help if the Minister clarified how we were briefed by the Saudis.
	Let me turn to the history of this issue. The al-Yamamah contract originated in the mid-1980s, and the context is often forgotten. It was not achieved primarily as a result of competition and British technological excellence; the context at that time was the very close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States, which both sides wished to perpetuate. However, the problem was that, as President Reagan provided Saudi Arabia with more and more sophisticated equipment, there were objections from Israel. Perfectly understandably, the Israelis were concerned about one of their potential adversaries acquiring sophisticated technology. The situation was not helped, of course, by the tirade of anti-Semitic abuse that often comes from the Saudi authorities. Israel protested, and friends of Israel in the United States Congress blocked the F-15 deal, which was in turn passed on to Britain and Mrs. Thatcher.
	The Reagan Administration were very anxious to bless this arrangement. They owed the Saudis various favours. They were supporting the Nicaraguan Contras and helping gallant freedom fighters in Afghanistansuch as Osama bin Laden. Reagan was perfectly happy to support this British arrangement, which proved to be one of the largest arms deals in history. It has been worth about 40 billion to date, and could be worth something of the same magnitude again in the future. It is not merely an arms deal, but one of extraordinary complexity that involves two major subsidiary features. One is an offset agreement, which, essentially, is a joint venture set of arrangements under which British companies put in capital and expertise, and their Saudi partners take their cut. There is also an oil element. There was an oil barter arrangement whereby oil was marketed, initially by Shell and BP, and the proceeds were routed through the MOD to BAE Systems.
	There was much criticism of these arrangements in the Treasury. Of course, the British taxpayer was taking the risk of oil price fluctuations. One consequence of the deal was that Saudi over-produced and drove down the price of oil, damaged the British North sea oil industryamong other thingsand contributed to the lack of capacity that we are experiencing.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am conscious of his experience in the oil industry. Bearing in mind not only the question of trade and the 40 billion deal that he mentioned, but the security implications of our relationship with Saudi Arabia and the important question of Iraq, is he suggesting that, if the SFO had continued its investigations, Anglo-Saudi relations would not have been tarnished at all?

Vincent Cable: They would not necessarily have been tarnished in the way that has been portrayed by the Government. I am merely echoing the judgments that were made by, for example, the Treasury, the ECGD and the Bank of England, which all considered that that deal was extremely bad for Britain. That was the key point.

Dominic Grieve: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am interested in trying to understand whether with the benefit of hindsight he still considers that the deal was bad for Britain. That was not quite the impression that I had of a deal that had apparently delivered 40 billion-worth of commercial benefits. If we look at the matter commercially, is he now saying that those opinions were right and that the deal was wrong? Or is he actually, as he develops his speech, pointing out how wrong some people were back in the 1980s about whether the deal would endure and confer benefits on the country?

Vincent Cable: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consult his former colleague, John MacGregor, who has exceptionally strong views about the abuse of taxpayers' money in that context.
	At the heart of the controversy is the way in which that complex contract led to corruption. Nobody has ever denied that large commission payments and corruption were involved in this case. Prince Bandar, who was the Saudi ambassador to the United States, fully acknowledged that over three decades roughly 50 million of the 40 billion spent by the Saudis was creamed off in the form of commissions to the royal family, adding, So what?
	We knowfrom people who have left the service of BAE Systems and sources such as Charles Freeman, who was the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and the CIA, whose material has been publishedthe way in which the slush funds operated. It is a long story, so I shall give the House a flavour of what happened through one or two vignettes. For example, in 1995, Prince Turki bin Nasr, who was head of the air force and one of the main recipients of commissions, went on a shopping trip. At some point, he and his party must have run out of plastic bags, because they ordered a cargo plane to take the shopping back to Saudi Arabia. They then billed BAE Systems for 165,000. In 2000, the same Minister paid a visit to the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), and was sufficiently stressed by the experience to need to clock into a health clinic for a couple of days, for which he billed BAE Systems 30,327. We know from the same sources that that Minister was paid roughly 3 million a year. His monthly credit card bill of 100,000 was routinely accepted.
	All that was justifiedit has just been justified again by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), a former Defence Ministerin the interest of jobs. As a constituency MP who frequently defends jobs in his constituency, I think that it is proper and appropriate for Members to advance that argument, but the issue is whether those jobs were justified by the way in which this matter proceeded. As I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Warley, those jobs were heavily subsidised and underwritten by the taxpayer, underpinned by corruption and eventually made us subject to blackmail. However, I accept that jobs were created by the project, and my final points centre on that issue. Employment was of course created in that industry and that company. The question is whether the price was worth paying and we need also to ask what that price was.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may have misconstrued my intervention. I had noted that at an earlier stage in his speech he had suggested that at the time the deals were set up he thought that they would be financially disadvantageous to this country. He left up in the air whether he still held that view. He may have other reasons to object to the agreement, but I wanted to understand his position, especially as he is his party's Treasury spokesman. Does he consider that the deal has been financially disadvantageous to the UK and if so, why?

Vincent Cable: I think that it has been financially and economically highly questionable. It is a future issue as well as a past issue, because the ECGD still needs to make a judgment on export credit for the current negotiations. Among other things, it will need to produce a warrant attesting to the fact that no corruption is involved. The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are therefore highly relevant, not matters of history.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that had the Liberal Democrats been in powerlet us stretch our imagination so farwhen this deal came up, they would, knowing everything that they know now, have ignored a 40 billion deal for this country?

Vincent Cable: It is economically illiterate to say that any 40 billion deal is acceptable at any price. Had the hon. Gentleman's party known about the corruption involved, I suspect that he would have had great reservations about it.

Angus MacNeil: Is not the overriding consideration that we live under the rule of law? Members on both sides of the Chamber have suggested that there is a price at which we should suspend reasonable judgment and take the 40 billion.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman puts the point well. That is indeed what is humiliating this country and the Government in our dealings with other OECD countries. We have now signed an international agreement to that effect.

Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman says that he has reached his final comments, but he has not yet addressed the issue of whether in the rare circumstances in which national security could have been endangered it is legitimate not to pursue a prosecution. Is he saying that, even if he were satisfied that national security might have been significantly endangered by the continuation of the work of the Serious Fraud Office and the bringing of charges, it would still have been wrong to, terminate the prosecution?

Vincent Cable: National security considerations must of course be at the centre of decisions of this kind. The point that I made earlier was that all the evidence that has emerged shows that that was not the advice of the intelligence services. Had it been, the story would have been a very different one.
	My final points are about the price that we are paying as a country. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) suggested, we are paying a price in terms of our respect in the developed world. Britain was admonished several months ago, even before the decision, for being the least compliant country, alongside Italy, in respect of the anti-bribery convention. People may say that such things happen everywhere, and what about the French? But the French have launched 11 prosecutions and initiated a major inquiry into corruption in Elf, which was looting Gabon. Everybody up to the French Foreign Minister was brought before the court. The French judicial prosecutor has commented on the British decision:
	The UK decision is a betrayal of the British people and every principle that Britain is committed to uphold.
	We know also that there is serious corruption at the upper levels of German business. Siemens is now being prosecuted and has lost substantial business with Nokia as a result. Volkswagen and Daimler have a bad history of corruption. The difference is that in Germany such behaviour is being prosecuted: in Britain it is not.
	Another price is paid in terms of our reputation in the developing world

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman has just made a serious allegation against BAE Systems [ Interruption. ] One of his colleagues says, from a sedentary position, Quite right. The hon. Gentleman has already accused those people of being guilty. He has said that they should be prosecuted and convicted before anyone has reported on the issue, but he should think very carefully before he blackens the character of such people.

Vincent Cable: I was going to come on to that point, but I have read the comments by the company carefully, as I was surprised to note that BAE Systems never denied that large commissions were paid. It was open about that, but it has claimed that it was not, legally speaking, bribery because their principaldefined in lawwas the Saudi Arabian Government. BAE Systems does not deny what happened, so I am not manufacturing any accusations that are not entirely supported by legitimate sources.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman seems to be moving to a key issue. On the one hand he says that the payments were corrupt, and on the other that the defendants say that no legal corruption was involved. If he is going to accuse people in this country of being corrupt, he must say how corruption, as defined by the Corruption Act 2006, has taken place. I should like to hear what he has to say, as the matter is so important.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing the legal arguments for one side, but there is another sideour Serious Fraud Office. In view of what he has said, it is all the more regrettable that BAE Systems has been denied its day in court, when it could have made these points itself.
	As for our relationship with the developing world, many hon. Members will have seen the comments made by Thabo Mbeki to the Prime Minister at Davos, when he accused the British Government of outright hypocrisy. He asked: if the British Government can invoke the national interest as a reason not to pursue an investigation that might have highlighted the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, why should they pursue an investigation into a case that might highlight the vice-president of South Africa? Britain is applying double standards

Rob Marris: Just like the Liberal Democrats.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman normally has a higher standard of wit than that.
	I was talking about our relationships with developing countries. I do not know whether the Minister for the Middle East has seen the DVD that his Department is promoting around Africa, but it is a sort of do-it-yourself guide to how not to be corrupt. It is entitled, apparently with no sense of irony, The Crimes of the Establishment. That is the British message to the developing world.
	Then there is the impact on the reputation of British companies that are trying to be honest and comply with the law. Several leading financial institutions that are involved in managing City funds have commented on the matter to the Prime Minister. One of the largest, Hermes, said:
	The decision has threatened the UK's reputation as a leading financial centre and will have high long-term costs for business and investment
	The chairman of AngloAmerican, one of our leading multinational companies, said in an email to me:
	I agree that the Government handling of the affair has damaged the reputation of Britain and the efforts of many responsible companies to build transparent relationships in overseas operations and contract negotiations will be set back and affected by suspicion and cynicism.

John Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Vincent Cable: I have given the Minister a go, so I shall just wind up my remarks.
	The main and final point that I want to make about the cost of the decision to this country has to do with the damage done to this House of Parliament by the suppression of the report.

John Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Vincent Cable: The right hon. Gentleman can make a speech in due course.
	The question that we on these Benches ask is: why has the reportuniquely in the history of the Housenot been released?

Edward Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman want an answer?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman has tried once, and I am sure that he will have another attempt shortly.
	The report was suppressed in 1992, but it is now clear that the reason had nothing to do with national security, because the whole al-Qaeda operation was not in flow thenindeed, it was on our side. The Chairman of the PAC at the time was Bob Sheldon, who said that the report would have embarrassed the Saudis, but how could that possibly have happened? Everything about commissions and bribery in Saudi Arabia is in the public domain already.
	It appears that Crown Prince Sultan has been one of the main recipients of the funding. He was described on television by his own nephew as the most corrupt Minister in the world. I cannot imagine that the House of Commons Clerks, or the Comptroller and Auditor General, could craft a more damaging phrase.
	The details of the corruption in Saudi Arabia are presented in many publications, but I recommend the one by Mr. Sandy Mitchell and his collaborator Bob Hollingsworth. Mr. Mitchell was a Glaswegian medical technician who was arrested and charged with terrorism because the Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Naif, wanted to pretend that al-Qaeda terrorism was committed not by Saudis but by
	British intelligence and the Jews.
	That was the opinion of one of Britain's allies. Mr. Mitchell was detained in prison for three years, brutally tortured and sentenced to be executednot by the humane method of beheading but by crucifixion. He has, of course, been released, as that sentence was ludicrous even by Saudi Arabian standards of judicial inquiry, but he is a very angry man. He is very angry with the Saudis, but also with the British Government, who dragged their feet repeatedly and made it clear that his plight, and that of his fellow suspects, was far less important than the pursuit of an arms contract in Saudi Arabia.

Kim Howells: Not true.

Vincent Cable: Well, I am sure that the Minister who makes that assertion has read Mr. Mitchell's book.
	If all those facts are known and in the public domain, why are the Government concerned about keeping the report hidden? It may be that it establishes that no criminal offence has been committed: that is what the Chairman of the PAC says, although I think that he has not read the report, but why can it not be shown to us? What is being concealed? That concealment is making the House look utterly foolish. I and my colleagues believe that the report should be published now.

Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	notes that the Serious Fraud Office's (SFO) decision to discontinue its investigation into BAE Systems plc and Saudi Arabia was taken independently by the Director of the SFO on grounds of national security in the public interest and in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors; further notes that the SFO is vigorously pursuing a number of other lines of investigation in relation to BAE Systems plc; welcomes the steps being taken by the Government to tackle international corruption; and further welcomes the Government's commitment to compliance with the United Kingdom's obligation under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions..
	I suppose that one could say that this case has it all for the headline-grabbing MParms deals, Arab princes and a big corporation, as well as allegations of corruption and of Swiss bank accounts. In reality, however, it is all about the rule of law, and it is on that I want to focus.

John Spellar: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mike O'Brien: I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear with me for a little while.
	The Liberal Democrats may use innuendo to claim that there was something wrong with the decision to discontinue the investigation, but the fact is that the investigation into BAE Systems and the al-Yamamah deal was discontinued by the director of the SFO, according to the law. That decision was accepted by the Attorney-General, according to the rule of law. The Liberal Democrats may not like the obligations on prosecutors to consider the public interestwhich includes the security of this countrybut, according to the rule of law, prosecutors are obliged to do so. In fact, to fail to do so would be to undermine the very rule of law that we in this House should seek to protect.
	Decisions like that are not easy. Sometimes, they may be deeply uncomfortable. They sometimes allow opponents to seize the political opportunity to challenge the integrity of the decision, or the integrity of individuals. The consequences in terms of perceptions may also be difficult, but the director of the SFO had an obligation to make a judgment, and he made it with integrity. I refute any claim that it was made with other than complete integrity.
	Robert Wardle is a fine public servant. He made a difficult decision, and this House should be supporting him and not making the sort of allegations that we have heard.

Peter Tapsell: rose

Mike O'Brien: The Attorney-General looked with great care at the details of this investigation. He reached the same conclusion that I didthat discontinuing the investigation was the right thing to do.
	The Liberal Democrats do not have to make difficult decisions: all that they need to do is wring their hands and criticise those who do have to make them. That, I suppose, is the nature of their politics. However, those who have criticised this decision need to come clean about what they are saying. Are they saying there was no risk to national security that would justify dropping the investigation? The Saudis were not silent about their concern about the investigation, and anyone who knows anything about the terrorist threat recognises the value of the co-operation of Saudi Arabia in dealing with it. Are the Liberal Democrats saying that the security threat was not as great as we understood it to be? If so, why is their judgment better than those who are best placed to judge the threat? Are they suggesting that it was all about jobs and the economy and not about security issues?

Alan Beith: Yes.

Mike O'Brien: Well, the OECD convention makes it clear that it is illegal to bring in economic issues. The Liberal Democrats claim that an improper decision was made, but the director of the SFO has made it clear that he did not bring in economic issues; he made the judgment based on national and international security grounds. The Law Officers have also made it clear that we excluded economic arguments from our consideration.
	Are the Liberal Democrats saying that although there was a national security risk the SFO investigation should have continued regardless? Are they seriously arguing that they would have put at risk the lives of our citizens? The more I look at the position of the Liberal Democrats, the more I conclude that it is untenable. Asking questions is one thing, but it is wrong to make implications of improper motives or decisions without sufficient evidence.

Simon Hughes: rose

Mike O'Brien: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I want him to provide evidence that Robert Wardle, the director of the SFO, made a decision that was improper according to the convention. He knows that Robert Wardle would not do that, so where is the evidence for his allegations?

Simon Hughes: The Solicitor-General knows that no one on the Liberal Democrat Benches has impugned the integrity of the director of the SFO. We have said that we want the Solicitor-General to explain why the Government's explanation has regularly changed. When the Attorney-General was asked in the debate in the other place about the phrase used in the explanation
	balancing the rule of law against the wider public interest
	why did he say:
	On reflection, I think that there is a risk of misunderstanding in those words ... I am very happy ... to make it clear ... that there is no question of saying that the rule of law in general should be set aside for wider interests of expediency or political or national interest?[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 2007; Vol. 689, c. 381.]
	That is not what we were told in December, but it is what the Attorney-General said on 1 February.

Mike O'Brien: What is the hon. Gentleman implying? Does he seriously imply that the person who made the decisionthe director of the Serious Fraud Officedid not make it based on the prosecutor's criteria of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware? Those criteria include looking at the evidence and at the public interest. It was perfectly right for the director of the SFO, and indeed for Law Officers who looked at the issue subsequently, to take a view in relation to the public interest. That is according to the rule of law. The hon. Gentleman's innuendo, or assumption, that the procedure was improper is not acceptable.

John Spellar: rose

Simon Hughes: rose

Mike O'Brien: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar).

John Spellar: I think that my hon. and learned Friend was slightly unfair to say that the Liberal Democrats do not have to make difficult decisions. In fact, they have to make a very difficult decision: whether to give back the 2.4 million they received from the convicted crook, Michael Brown. It would be interesting to know whether they ever intend to give back that money.

Mike O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
	Members of the House have not been kept in the dark about the reasons for the decision. There is no mystery about the main issues in the case. The Attorney-General and I have given full explanations in both Houses, answered questions and corresponded with Members of both Houses.
	The key issue is the crucial importance of Saudi Arabia as a partner in the UK's fight against terrorism. Saudi Arabia is a source of valuable streams of intelligence on al-Qaeda and other terrorist activity that may represent a threat to our citizens in this country and abroad, and to our armed forces. Saudi Arabia also plays a key role in the Government's efforts to promote peace and stability in the middle east.
	If the investigation had gone ahead, the judgment was that there was a real danger that Saudi Arabia would withdraw its co-operation on counter-terrorism. We would be deprived of a key partner in our counter-terrorism strategy and UK lives would be put at risk. The importance of the UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia in the fight against terrorism is clear to everyone.
	I want to deal with some of the ill-informed and mischievous comments made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about the security services and the Secret Intelligence Service. His comments were ill-informed because SIS is clear about the importance of the Saudi counter-terrorist effort to the UK. It would not be possible to replicate the counter-terrorism effort that has been achieved with the Saudis on UK-Saudi aspects of the problem if it were necessary to work at one removed, say through the USA, or some other liaisonif that is what Members would prefer.
	SIS has made it clear that it shared the concerns about the possible consequences for the public interest of the SFO investigation. SIS considered that there was a risk to the UK's national security interests from pursuing the al-Yamamah investigation, and had been informed of the threat to curtail operations directly. At no stage did SIS or anyone else who was consulted disagree with the overall assessment that the Saudi threats were real. SIS agreed that, although it did not know for certain that the threat would be carried out, it had to be taken seriously.
	Before the SFO decision was taken, the Attorney-General and I discussed the matter with the chief of SIS. His view was that the Saudis might withdraw their co-operation if the SFO investigation continued, and that they might decide to do so at any time. It was estimated that further investigation of the case would take 18 months. That would be 18 months of public pressure on the relationship between our countries, with allegations flying around in the media about the Saudi Government and questions being asked about the dealings of senior members of the Saudi Governmentwith no guarantee at all of prosecution.
	Having been advised of that risk, the director of the SFO concluded that it was not a risk that could properly be run in the public interest and that the investigation should be halted, and he did that according to the law. The Attorney-General agreed with the director's decision to stop the case, having regard to his own view that the case was unlikely to lead to a successful prosecution in any event. The director of the SFO's decision was not easy, but it had to be taken. Those who criticise the decision need to ask themselves what they would have done. Would they have risked throwing away our crucial relationship with Saudi Arabia on counter-terrorism co-operation, for the sake of pursuing an uncertain case?

Andrew George: The Solicitor-General still needs to address the plausibility of the claim that the Saudis would withdraw their co-operation. Surely, they need co-operation from all international parties, given the fact they are No. 1 on the al-Qaeda hit list. Al-Qaeda's primary aim is the elimination of the house of Saud, so does not the Solicitor-General accept that he must explain the plausibility of the claim that the Saudis would not co-operate?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman knows the importance of our relationship with Saudi Arabia in with dealing terrorism. Those links have been established at their existing level only in recent years. The amount of information we are receiving is considerable and we want to ensure that it continues at that level. We are all well aware that the Saudis were extremely concerned about the investigation and the way in which certain senior members of their Government [ Interruption. ] Will the hon. Gentleman stop shouting at me and listen? Perhaps then he will better understand the answer to his question.
	Senior members of the Saudi Government were concerned about the nature of allegations from people such as the Liberal Democrats. There were constant innuendos and allegations but little evidence was provided. The SFO investigated the matter for a considerable periodabout two yearsand when the decision was made to discontinue the investigation it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute. The SFO would have required at least a further 18 months simply to find out whether it was in a position to prosecute, and even then it may not have been able to do so.
	The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues seem content, despite their limited knowledge compared to that of the SFO, to decide that there was guilt on almost all sides. That is the politics of innuendo and allegationthe sort of political opportunism that we have come to expect from the Liberal Democrats, but which is being developed at a brand new level today, to judge from the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham. I have not had the opportunity to watch the hon. Gentleman strut his stuff in that way before; the innuendo and allegations were traipsing from his lips. People were being accused of all sorts of things and he did not provide the evidence to substantiate that. He suggested a number of examples of events that happened. If he had read with care the statements that the Attorney-General and I made, and the view of the director of the Serious Fraud Office, he would have been aware that the examples that he gave were pre-2002, when the new legislation came in. Basing its view on that information alone, the SFO would not have been in a position to put forward the sort of case that it ought to have done.

Vincent Cable: Surely the Solicitor-General is aware that, before 2002, it was still an offence to engage in false accounting and bribery in the United Kingdom and those were among the matters that were being investigated.

Mike O'Brien: There were investigations going on and the SFO was clear that they would have taken another 18 months, and yet the hon. Gentleman stands in the House and seems to hold the view that he can conclude that all sorts of improper things were being done by people who, at least, have a right to expect that a Liberal Democrat would take the view that someone was innocent until proved guilty. But he is prepared to say, in effect, that people were being corrupt. He needs to be able to substantiate that and I have not heard anything from him that does.

Rob Marris: May I take my hon. and learned Friend back to when he referred to the Attorney-General coming to the decision that the investigation was going nowhere? The SFO was investigating under the law that the Government tightened in 2002. Does he share my surprise at the position of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)? The hon. Gentleman said that British Aerospace openly said, Yes, we paid, but it was to the Saudi Government. It was all out in the open and he said that everything in Saudi Arabia is in the public domain. Does that approach not suggest that, after a two and half years, because everything was out in the open and there had been no prosecution brought in this country, and that the investigation was just dragging on and going nowhere?

Mike O'Brien: The Attorney-General spent not, as the hon. Member for Twickenham put it, a few hours, but several daysI well remember him taking home large bundles of files for considerable periods of timegoing through the detail. I spent quite a considerable time looking at the evidence as well, although, I have to confess, not as long as the Attorney-General. He formed the view that it was unlikely for legal as well as other reasons that a prosecution would succeed. It is the case that the director of the Serious Fraud Office thought that there might be some ability to continue investigating and that it might be able to prosecute, but that was likely to take a further 18 months and there were consequences for Britain's national and international security relationships, which were, in our view, likely to be damaged.

Tobias Ellwood: The Solicitor-General is making the case for security concerns in relation to Saudi Arabia. Were the Serious Fraud Office to continue this investigation, what would be the consequences for the delivery of the 72 Eurofighters?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East will be able to deal with that when he winds up. That is one of the issues that he may well wish to address. Perhaps I could leave that to him, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned an alleged plea bargain. I am told that the company was never invited to make guilty pleas in relation to this matter. That possibility was, however, considered by the SFO. The Attorney-General did not object to it, but had some doubts about whether it would succeed. In the event that course was not followed, because in the meantime the director of the Serious Fraud Office had decided to stop the case on national security grounds.
	I will deal briefly with the next matter, because I am not sure that it is a matter for me at all and I am sure that others will deal with it at greater length. In relation to the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is the case that this is not a matter for the Government. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has made the position clear on a number of occasions. The report is covered by parliamentary privilege and our approach is, of course, to comply with that. The report refers to confidential arrangements between the Governments of the UK and Saudi Arabia. The report has not been published because publication would breach the pledge of confidentiality and would therefore harm our bilateral relationships.

Simon Hughes: The Solicitor-General has raised the issue that the Attorney-General raised last week in the House of Lords. On what date did the director of the Serious Fraud Office contemplate, to use the words of the Attorney-General,
	inviting BAE and certain BAE executives to plead guilty to certain charges[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 2007; Vol. 689, c. 380.]
	and on what date was the decision taken that that course should not be pursued?

Mike O'Brien: I cannot remember the precise date. It would probably be about the end of the first week of December. That is my recollection of when I first heard that possibility floated, but it was no more than that. I would have to check again because I was not directly involved in some of those discussions. Let me write to the hon. Gentleman. In terms of when that course was no longer pursued, the answer is obviously when a decision was made on 14 December not to pursue it. The director of the Serious Fraud Office had indicated his view to us on 13 December. At that point, it was effectively no longer on the table. I am not sure, in a sense, in real terms, that it ever was. It was something that was discussed, but action was never taken on it. I am not aware of any offer that was ever made in relation to a plea bargain. It was merely considered, but the director of the Serious Fraud Office took the view that it should not be pursued.
	Mention has been made of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development anti-bribery convention. Let me make this clear: the Government remain entirely supportive of the convention. The SFO director and the Attorney-General are firmly of the view that the decision taken in relation to the Saudi case was wholly compatible with article 5 of the convention. We do not believe that the convention does, or was ever intended to, prevent national authorities from taking decisions on the basis of fundamental considerations of national and international security and we do not believe that we or any other state would have signed up to the convention on that basis.
	Stopping the SFO al-Yamamah case does not mean that we are backing off from our commitment to tackle international corruption. On the contrary, we are clear that we need to redouble our efforts. No company is above the law. The SFO is actively pursuing a number of investigations into suspected international corruption involving BAE systems. I do not prejudge any of those investigations. BAE denies corruption in relation to those matters and it is right that it should be given the benefit of the doubt, as should all defendants. For the information of the House, the countries affected are South Africa, Romania, Tanzania and the Czech Republic. There are also inquiries in Chile and Qatar. The SFO is also engaged in seven other cases involving suspected bribery or corruption overseas, as well as fraud. They include investigations relating to Bosnia, Nigeria, Zambia, Costa Rica and Egypt. Those too are active cases. For example, in the Costa Rica case, relating to PWS reinsurance, on 30 January, the SFO and officers of the newly formed City of London police overseas corruption unit executed warrants at six sites in the UK and arrested four people. The Attorney-General has told the SFO that it should pursue those cases vigorously. The clear message is that no British company or individual is above the law or immune from action in this area.

Angus MacNeil: Is the situation that, at the beginning of December, plea bargaining was being considered in some shape or form and then a couple of weeks later the investigation was terminated?

Mike O'Brien: When a decision was made, quite properly and in accord with the law, the director of the Serious Fraud Office believed that national security and the public interest required him to discontinue that investigation. Quite properly, there was some discussion in the SFO in relation to the plea bargain consideration, which was merely a contemplation rather than anything much more than that. But that was not doneI am told that no plea was offered to the company. If the hon. Gentleman has information to the contrary, he should say so. I am acting on what the SFO tells me: there never was a plea bargain, in effect, on offer. It was not there and so, in a sense, some of this discussion is otiose.
	The Government are also taking other action in relation to international corruption. The Secretary of State for International Development is co-ordinating the work. The UK anti-corruption action plan was approved at the end of July 2006. That plan focuses on the critical actions needed to investigate and prosecute bribery overseas, eliminate money laundering, recover stolen assets, promote responsible business conduct in developing countries, and support international efforts to fight corruption.
	I conclude by saying that, ultimately, this case comes down to the question of whether the SFO should have continued an investigation that risked the UK's national security. The director took the right decision to halt the case. Those Members who would have liked the investigation to continue regardless of the risk to lives and security should have the courage to say so. It is now time for them to put up or shut up. For too long, we have had the politics of innuendothe gently shaking head that says questions must be asked about the integrity of decision-makers. Well, scepticism has its place, but a surfeit of it brings cynicism and political opportunism where the integrity of every decision-maker is constantly in question. I believe that that slippery politics can itself lack integrity. It enables the purveyors to attack decisions and duck defending their own position.

Alan Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to question the integrity of other hon. Members, irrespective of whether it comes from the Government Front Bench or anywhere else?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the comment was not directed at an individual hon. Member, so I took it more as a general comment than one that should be reproved.  [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Gentleman does, however, give me the opportunity to say that temperate, moderate language has always been the hallmark of our debates.

Mike O'Brien: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that my comments were temperate. I could think of other things that I would like to say, but I am prohibited by your rightful running of operations in the House from saying them. I did feel that some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Twickenham were not appropriate.
	The issues in the case are real and serious. It was undoubtedly a very difficult decision for the director to make and subsequently for the Law Officers to consider. Those in positions of responsibility have an obligation to make decisions that are in accord with the rule of lawand that is what happened. Meanwhile, other cases are being actively pursued and our commitment to tackling international corruption remains as strong as it ever was.

Dominic Grieve: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on presenting a debate on what is without doubt a very important issue. The question of the discontinuance of the Serious Fraud Office investigation, the role of the Attorney-General and the director of the Serious Fraud Office in doing that, and the consultation with Ministers before it took place are all highly legitimate issues for debate in the House. The fact that we have an opportunity to debate them is clearly of great value. I shall come back to that aspect of the matter in a few moments.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham will forgive my saying this, but it is noteworthy that the Liberal Democrat motion was very widely drawn. It is also noteworthy that he did not raise some aspects of the motion at all in the course of the debate, which came as a slight surprise to me. There was no reference to the very important issue of the sale of the military air traffic control system to Tanzania, though that may be because the matter was extensively debated on a Conservative Opposition motion on 30 January.
	More tellingly, although the motion calls for an inquiry into the circumstances of the SFO action, the hon. Member for Twickenham made no mention of it. That made me wonder whether his views on the matter were now so set in stone that he did not consider that any independent inquiry was needed in any event [Interruption.] I hear reference made on the Liberal Democrat Benches to lawyers' comments; the hon. Member for Twickenham will hear more of them in a few moments. As I listened to what he had to say and as I tried to conduct a reasonably objective analysis of some really serious matters, I started to have increasing worries about the way in which he was carrying his reasoning forward.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham raised a number of issues about the initial principle of the al-Yamamah agreement. That seems a perfectly legitimate issue of debate. It is an old matter, going back to the 1980s and it was, of course, negotiated by a Conservative Government and, seeing that its provisions have been renewed, continued by a Labour Government. It is, by any showing, an unusual arrangement. It is unusual because it is a Government-to-Government agreement and because of the methods of payment under it, as it is partly paid for by Saudi oilwhich is unusual in itself. It is a relationship package at a Government-to-Government level rather than an ordinary commercial agreement. That is perfectly clear. As such, when the hon. Gentleman said that he disliked the arrangements, he was raising a perfectly legitimate point, albeit one that is somewhat ancient history.
	I come back to an issue that I raised with the hon. Gentleman when I intervened earlier. What was difficult to understand was how he succeededin a virtuoso performancein conflating his dislike of the arrangements with the suggestion that it was economically disadvantageous. I must say that that was the first time that I had heard that suggested, and it was the point in his argument at which I began to think that I might not be inhabiting the same planet as him. I ask him about it again, as I hope there may be an opportunity to deal further with it in the summing-up. It is possible to argue that we should not have such relations with Saudi Arabia or that such Government-to-Government agreements are undesirable and should never be embarked on, but the suggestion that the agreement is economically disadvantageous for this country requires rather more justification than he was able to provide.
	Equally, the hon. Gentleman did not deal at allor at least he skated overanother important question of whether the agreement as a package was advantageous or disadvantageous for our national security and national interest. I hope that at some point we will hear from the Liberal Democrats whether they believe that the nature of the agreement and the building of relations with another state in the middle eastan area of instabilityin the form that the al-Yamamah agreement has undoubtedly achieved is desirable or not. Some of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman went on to make must be viewed in that light, and we are surely entitled to know what the Liberal Democrats think of the basic principle of the security co-operation between the two Governments. As far as I can tellI look carefully at my notesthat was entirely skated over. That may be convenient for the hon. Gentleman in characterising the Liberal Democrat approach of never committing to anything.  [Interruption.] I look forward to hearing more about that.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman talks about the economic benefits of the deal and the value of relations with Saudi Arabia. The Solicitor-General mentioned part of article 5 of the OECD convention on bribery, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rest of it reads:
	Investigation and prosecution of the bribery... shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest
	or
	the potential effect upon relations with another state?
	Those considerations are not materialor they should not be materialto the dropping of the investigation.

Dominic Grieve: In one way, that could not have been better said. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but that raises the question why the hon. Member for Twickenham started what I had hoped would be a focused debate on the discontinuance of the investigation with a peroration which included a number of completely and utterly barmy assertions to the effect that the agreement was, in fact, economically disadvantageous in the first place. Given that the hon. Member for Twickenham raised the matter, it is incumbent on other Members to debate it. It seems to be part of a total picture that the hon. Gentleman has tried to convey that I find slightly unreal.

Vincent Cable: May I repeat my point? If the documents on the 1980s were available, we would all be able to gain a better informed view of the economic and other benefits, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Treasury, the Bank of England, the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Department responsible for energy at that timeand specifically, the hon. Gentleman's former colleague, the then Mr. John MacGregorall took the view that the agreement was highly disadvantageous?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I understand that, which is why I intervened to make the point that, as so often happens in the House, when decisions are made, some people say that they are a good idea and others say that they are a bad idea. However, we are now 20 years down the road, and my impression was that the hon. Gentleman was unable to come to the conclusion that this had been a financially disadvantageous package. That rather undermines the reasons for raising the issue in the first place. It rather coloured my view of the judgments that he went on to exercise on other matters.
	To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I entirely accept that, on the question of the discontinuance of the SFO investigation, the economic advantage to this country cannot come into play. He was quite right about that. I want to turn to that issue now. When we remove the froth around it that I have tried to identify, we see that it is the main issue that the hon. Member for Twickenham wishes to debate. It is worthy of debate and of great importance. I had had very little reason to focus on the issue until shortly before the Attorney-General made his announcement in the other place and the Solicitor-General made the announcement on behalf of the Government here.
	When someone tells me that they are going to announce the discontinuance of an SFO investigation, it seems incumbent on me to focus on the issues involved and to do the best I can to analyse whether the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are trying to pull the wool over Parliament's eyes, whether it is an attempt at a sordid deception of the House, whether it is another example of the perpetration of systematic deceit of a serious nature from within the Government, or whether in fact the argument might have some force.
	I accept that we do not know all the facts of the case. That is a very real issue, and one reason why it is legitimate to debate the matter. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that, as far as he could tell, payments made by BAE Systems to third parties under the al-Yamamah contract had been open and made with the knowledge of the Saudi authorities. All my inquiries have also suggested that that is the case. That raises some interesting legal issues.
	The hon. Gentleman may properly argue that the complex nature of the al-Yamamah contract and the relationships between the Governments were of a kind that we should not have embarked onor continued to pursue, as this Government have done. However, it is becoming clear to my mindI am trying to apply a lawyer's mind to the matterthat there is a considerable difficulty, because there does not appear to have been a criminal offence committed by anyone.
	There might be other facts available to the SFO. Other issues might have coloured its decisions. Perhaps secret payments were made that we do not know about. However, the basic ingredients of corruptionhon. Members may go off and look this up in the bookinvolve someone paying secret commissions to the agent of the party with whom he is dealing, to encourage the agent to favour him with a continuing contract on behalf of the principal. That is the foundation of the offence. At times in the House we have raisedand will, no doubt, continue to raiseserious anxieties that certain companies might be doing that. Reference was made to France, where, I regret to say, there has been ample evidence that French companies have been corrupting the officials of foreign Governments on a serial basis for many years. That might be done in this country as well, in an international setting. I suspect that it was certainly done before the passing of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and if it is still being done, it is a serious criminal offence, even if it is done abroad.
	When I was confronted with this issue, I went off to do a bit of research and make some inquiries. It seemed to me that the Attorney-General might have a point when he said that he thought that the inquiry might be going nowhere. On the face of it, there can be no prosecution if there was an agreement to give commission payments to certain agents of the Saudi Government, with the full knowledge of the Saudi Government, as part of the overall contractual arrangements. Reprehensible as it may be that that would enable certain people to go on shopping sprees around London and to take planes back to their country, and that some individuals in Saudi Arabia have Swiss bank accounts, none of those things amounts to the commission of a criminal offence. The Attorney-General and the other Law Officers have to focus on whether a criminal offence has been committed, and whether continuing an inquiry would be productive.

Tobias Ellwood: It is useful to place this matter in context. The al-Yamamah deal is worth 40 billion, and we are talking about moneys that have moved into various accounts to the value of about 50 millionthe figures varywhich is less than 0.1 per cent. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a small amount of money in comparison with the deal as a whole?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point. I simply have not the slightest idea how much money has been paid as side commission, so I do not feel able to comment further on the matter. All that I can say is that, on the question of whether it is a criminal offence to pay a substantial sum of moneywhether a tiny or a large percentage of the total involvedto a third party as part of an agreement, with the knowledge of the principal, I find it difficult to see how such an offence has been committed.
	It was asked whether there might have been a failure to disclose these payments in accounts. I do not know the answer to that, but it would be a separate issue to that of corruption. I am not in a position to make a judgment on that. On the main issue, however, the Attorney-General had a legitimate point to makeunless of course he is deceiving Parliament.

Simon Hughes: Does the shadow Attorney-General acknowledge that the decision was not made on the basis that there might not be enough evidence to stack up in order to bring charges? It was made on the other ground on which prosecution investigations can be discontinued. We shall never know the answer unless we see the papers and the trail of discovery. The SFO has been charged to do this kind of work since it was set up in 1988, and its director has been in post for many years. Is it really credible that he would have committed himself and his staff to an investigation for almost three years if the basis of the crime did not exist in the first place?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This is one of the reasons why this matter should be debated. I fully accept that that is a legitimate issue to raise. It is, however, possible to embark on an investigation without being clear about the full facts, and for those facts to emerge only during the course of the investigation. That is not unusual. Heaven knows, I have been involved often enough in prosecutingand sometimes defendingindividuals when the penny has dropped only on the first day of the trial that there is no case against the individual concerned. Indeed, I can think of one casein which I was counsel for the defencein which the prosecution ended up with egg all over its face because it was only at the close of the prosecution case that the penny dropped that there was no case against the defendant. A great deal of public money had been incurred by that stage.

Mike O'Brien: I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He has raised the issue of the law of agency, which was of serious concern to the Attorney-General and me while we were looking at this matter. I can confirm that the law of agency was also one of the issues that the director of the SFO was looking at, along with the question of how we would be able to ask the appropriate questions, in view of the difficult circumstances relating to the Saudi Government. That is a significant problem in relation to this matter. On the issue of agency and whether there would have been a case, the hon. Gentleman raises some important pointsindeed, points that the Attorney-General and I felt caused great concern, particularly if they meant that there would have to be 18 months of investigation before we could even come to the conclusion that there was no case to answer.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his comments, which remind me that I have not dealt with the first, and equally important, point raised by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), although I was in a sense coming to it.
	I am not sure that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentlemanthe Solicitor-General may be able to correct meon the concerns that weighed on the mind of the Attorney-General and the director of the Serious Fraud Office when they looked into the matter. After the briefing that I attended, at which the hon. Gentleman was present, I was left with the impression that the public interest issue was viewed in light of uncertainties about whether a prosecution could be successful. It seems perfectly proper to weigh those two considerations in the same balance, and for one to have an impact on the other. I also had the impression that it was not simply the public interest test that led the director of the Serious Fraud Office, having discussed the matter with the Attorney-General, to decide to discontinue the investigation. I saw the two factors as running together. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong.

Simon Hughes: I have just one other point to make, because I do not want there to be disagreement where there need not be. The hon. Gentleman and I were indeed both at the meeting with the Solicitor-General, and I am clear about the fact that both considerations were in play. The questions on the Law Officers' minds were how much evidence there was, and what the national interest was. In the end, it was national interest that pulled the plug on the investigation, because in any event, irrespective of the Attorney-General's view of where the investigation was going, they took the decision that they deemed necessary at the time. The hon. Gentleman and I are both clear that that was the decisive cause for the decision, but whether there would have been sufficient evidence to ensure a 50 per cent. chance of conviction is an open question.

Dominic Grieve: I certainly do not wish to have an unnecessary disagreement with the hon. Gentleman, and it is quite clear that there were real issues of public interest, in terms of national security, that weighed heavily on the Attorney-General. Indeed, the Attorney-General made it quite clear that, before making his decision, he called in the papershe described graphically how he pored over them in his office for three days, reviewing the matterand had discussions with the intelligence services, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, I think, and the British ambassador in Riyadh about the possible impact on national security, and therefore on the public interest. Under our constitution, the Attorney-General is the guardian of the public interest consideration in matters of prosecution.
	That brings me to a second issue: in describing the Attorney-General's reasoning, and when considering how he arrived at his view, one must ask whether he was being frivolous, or had gone on some bizarre frolic of his own, or was trying to deceive Parliament. I have to say to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that we should bear in mind the current state of the middle east, the importance of the state of our relations with Saudi Arabia, the current terrorist threat, the argument that close relations with the Saudi Government are important, and the fact that it appeared that the Saudi Government found the investigation irritating, to put it mildlyand we would almost certainly have needed their co-operation to bring the investigation to a satisfactory conclusion, because witnesses would have to be found in Saudi Arabia to establish the facts. All those factors make the Attorney-General's reasoning appear perfectly credible.
	This is not a criticism of the Attorney-General, but I was left in no doubt that his intervention must have had a major bearing on the conclusion that the director of the Serious Fraud Office eventually reached; I have always assumed that that was the case. If I may say so to the Solicitor-General, I do not consider that in any way improper. Still, the Attorney-General is perfectly entitled to say that, at the end of the day, it was the director of the Serious Fraud Office who took the decision, but I do not think that the Government ever suggested that the Attorney-General did not hold widespread consultation with all interested partiesquite legitimately, under the Shawcross rulesbefore arriving at the decision, or that he did not discuss the matter with the director of the Serious Fraud Office, who then went off and made his decision.

Malcolm Rifkind: I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend says, but perhaps he does not go far enough. If the ultimate reason for the decision was national security, it would be for neither the SFO nor the Attorney-General but the Prime Minister to express a view on the matter. It would be the Attorney-General, reflecting the view of the Prime Minister, who would then have discussions with the SFO.

Dominic Grieve: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. I am not usually fair to the Prime MinisterI have no desire to bebut when he pointed out, quite openly, that he had had major involvement in the matter, it did not strike me as improper, although the fact remains that it is the Attorney-General who is the guardian of the public interest under our prosecution system. It is for the Attorney-General to make decisions, although it is also possible for those within prosecution services to make the decisions first, before they refer them to him. As I understand it, that is what the director of the Serious Fraud Office chose to do.

Rob Marris: rose

Dominic Grieve: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I will make progress.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing his usual generosity. In reply to an intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said that, in principle, one should be able to take into account national security, although not in this case. Does the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) share my surprise about that?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I do, and I am trying to explain to the House why, when I considered the matter, I came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no evidential basis for saying that the Attorney-General's decision was wrong, however convenient it might be to do so from the point of view of narrow party political advantage. There was nothing whatever to support that suggestion. I do not want to take up much more of the House's time, but the basic premise on which the hon. Member for Twickenham opened the debate is fundamentally flawed. He may argue against the system, and he might have argued against the al-Yamamah agreement in principle when it started, but if we focus on the narrow issue, the Attorney-General seems to have acted properly.
	In conclusion, as a result of what happened, it has been suggested that we have the wrong prosecution system in this country. It has been suggested that we should do as the Irish have done, and make the Director of Public Prosecutions and the head of the Serious Fraud Office utterly independent of Government, using a system similar to that used for judicial appointments. Thereafter, the head of the Serious Fraud Office would make his own judgment about what was in the public interest, without reference to anybody else. I can see that that model has a superficial attraction, but the reality would be different to what is envisaged. First, I have serious doubts that such an independent prosecutor would have come to a different decision. Secondly, there would be the consequence that the matter would never have been debated. Debates such as today's would never happen again, in any circumstances, and there would be no parliamentary scrutiny. It is extraordinary to suggest that that should be the state of affairs.
	That is why, with all its undoubted imperfections, the Attorney-General's slightly unhappy role, often described as a great burden, of reconciling such difficult issues will have to continue. I have not heard it said that public interest considerations should be abolished hereafter in deciding whether a person should be prosecuted. If we were to do that, there would be absurd consequences, and there would quickly be a clamour in the House about how wrong and stupid it was that some people were being prosecuted, because the consequences of bringing the prosecution were out of all proportion with the possibility of securing a conviction.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman mentioned parliamentary scrutiny, but he has so far not mentioned the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, and the request that it be laid before the House. That would go a long way towards clearing up the hon. Gentleman's doubts and uncertainties. Do Conservative Front Benchers support its being laid before the House?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that. It is the last point that I intended to deal with. I cannot go behind what was said by the then Robert Sheldon as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee:
	I did an investigation and I find no evidence that
	the MOD
	made improper payments. I have found no evidence of fraud or corruption. The deal ... complied with Treasury Approval and the rules of government accounting.
	If that is the case, and on the basis that there were good reasons why the report should not have been issued back in 1992and I do not see that it is very germane to the issue of the discontinuance of the prosecution under discussionI find every reason to think that we must come up with some pretty compelling arguments if we wish to reverse the decision that was taken by Parliament then. I accept that it must be a legitimate subject of debate, but it is not one on which I feel confident to say that the then PAC Chairman was wrong in the judgment that he made.
	I find the Liberal Democrat motion so woolly that it will not command the support of the Conservatives. Should the Government amendment be put to the vote, we will support it.

Roger Berry: It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said, the Serious Fraud Office decision was a difficult decision and an uncomfortable one, so it is not surprising that some of us still have to be satisfied that it was the right decision. I say at the outset that I find it difficult to be persuaded that the decision by the SFO to suspend the investigation into BAE Systems and the al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia was the right decision.
	I shall make and have made no allegations of unlawful activity by any company, any Government or any individual in relation to the matter. I share the concerns of my hon. and learned Friend. In the debate today and in the debate on Tanzania last week, I heard it alleged that Governments, for example, have been involved in bribery, when there is not a shred of evidence for that. However, I am slightly amused when I hear it suggested that there has never, ever been any shred of evidence that bribery and corruption have been evident in any arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
	I shall give one example. I saw Newsnight on 16 June 2006, when the former Defence Secretary, the noble Lord Gilmour, clearly stated that Britain bribed senior Saudi officials to secure arms contracts. I say to Members, do not believe me, believe  The Daily Telegraph of 17 June last year, in which Lord Gilmour was quoted as saying:
	'You either got the business and bribed, or you didn't bribe and didn't get the business.'
	I am the first to say that that is not a reference about today or about recent years, but I find it strange that there are still those who deny that there has ever been anybody who has provided any significant evidence of bribery at any time in relation to al-Yamamah.
	If a Defence Secretary cannot be trusted[Hon. Members: He was not a Defence Secretary.] May I quote again?  The Daily Telegraph refers to him as
	a former Tory defence secretary.
	I will take an intervention to correct  The Daily Telegraph any time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be dealing with his speech for the time being.

Malcolm Rifkind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Roger Berry: Of course.

Malcolm Rifkind: Educating the hon. Gentleman must be in the interests of the House. Lord Gilmour was never Secretary of State for Defence. I think he was at one time shadow Secretary of State for Defence, but he never occupied the post itself.

Roger Berry: I am grateful. I do not read  The Daily Telegraph as often as perhaps I should. I probably now know why.

Dominic Grieve: Prior to 2001 it was not a criminal offence in this country to bribe foreign officials abroad. Applying a little common sense leaves little doubt that bribery must have been and was regularly used in relation to foreign contracts by British companies abroad. Not necessarily in relation to Saudi arms contracts but as a general rule, there is quite a lot of evidence to show that that was the case. I wanted to make that clear.

Roger Berry: I am more delighted by the interventions as the debate goes on. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says entirely. It was not until 2002 that the present Government enacted legislation to make international bribery a criminal offence.

Robert Smith: As final clarification, may I cite a more reliable publication, Dod? Back in the early 1970s, Lord Gilmour was indeed in the Ministry of Defence and was a Minister.

Roger Berry: I am delighted. I hope that that is the final intervention on the point. I did not see the wording of the motion until this morning, so I did not have time to do my own research. I apologise to the House.

Malcolm Rifkind: I misled the hon. Gentleman. I have now had the opportunity to check. Lord Gilmour became briefly, for two or three months, Secretary of State for Defence at the end of Mr. Heath's Government, when Lord Carrington was moved to another post. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He was technically correct.

Roger Berry: There is correct and incorrect. Technically correct is correct. I drew attention to Lord Gilmour's comments. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) confirmed what we all acknowledge, and he is right. Bribery in relation to trade deals or arms deals was not a criminal offence until 2002. There should therefore be no surprise when people point out that considerable bribery was going on before then.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Roger Berry: I should like to make my final introductory point before I come to my concerns. We have little time.
	I have said on countless occasions that the Government deserve enormous credit for two things in relation to the matters that are the subject of our debate. The first is controlling arms exports. Before 1997, the policy was arms to Iraq and the Scott inquiry. This Government provided the first and most comprehensive overhaul of the export control regime since 1939. They are now promoting internationally an arms trade treaty and leading on that, for which they deserve enormous credit.

Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend comment on the excellent and positive briefing that we, as members of the Quadripartite Committee on Strategic Export Controls, which my hon. Friend chairs, both received this morning from Foreign Office officials on the work that they are doing to take forward our submission to the UN on developing an international arms trade treaty? Does he have any concerns about the impact that the questions raised today might have on that continuing and positive work, in which the Government have played a leading role?

Roger Berry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do have concerns, which I shall come to. The reason that I make the comments that I do about the SFO's decision is not that I am critical of the Government's overall policy on the arms trade and dealing with bribery and corruption, but that I genuinely find aspects of the decision puzzling and wish to share that with the House.
	Reference has rightly been made to the OECD convention on combating bribery. Article 5, as has been pointed out, requires that the investigation and prosecution of bribery overseas shall not be influenced by
	the potential effect upon relations with another state.
	It has not been mentioned that that is why the OECD is currently investigating that decision and has already taken evidence. I have seen the evidence that the Government have submitted to the OECD. In the near futureI assume by early March, although my hon. and learned Friend the Minister may be able to advise us on this pointthere will be a written response from the OECD. I assume that the OECD makes such inquiries when there is a good reason do so and that it is not being frivolous.
	The Government have referred to national security. I have no criticism if there is a demonstrable national security interest to such matters. Various Government statements, including the statement issued in December, have referred to the Government's foreign policy objectives in the middle east, which I happen passionately to share. If the purpose of the OECD convention is not to restrict the areas of national interest that signatories can take into account before pulling the plug on bribery investigations, then what is it? Although article 5 does not state this, I am prepared in principle to sign up to the hidden assumption that national security would be a reason in the public interest for ceasing to investigate further. However, if foreign policy objectives were meant to be included in the OECD convention, I am yet to find them.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Merely causing problems in a relationship with another friendly state is not in itself sufficient justification for, as he described it, pulling the plug on an investigation. However, where national security is directly affected by that relationship, it was never the intention of this country when we signed up to that convention to say that we would not take into account the risk posed by terrorism to this country when considering whether to continue a case. Quite legitimately, the director of the SFO examined the convention and took the view that the full text of article 5, including the relationship with other countries, did not preclude his taking into account terrorism and the need to maintain relationships that enable our national security and international security to be properly protected. The Law Officers and, in making the decision itself, the director of the SFO acted entirely in accord with that convention.

Roger Berry: That longish intervention is clearly helpful to the debate. I await the outcome of the OECD investigation, and if the OECD expresses a contrary view, this House must re-examine the matter. I remain unconvinced that it is absolutely clear that the SFO has acted in accordance with the OECD conventionI am not a lawyer, but I have my doubts.
	I find it difficult to accept the argument that Saudi Arabiathe hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) has made this pointwould not share intelligence to combat terrorism. Saudi Arabia has at least as big a stake in fighting terrorism as anyone else, although I do not expect my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to provide cast iron evidence to the House. I sincerely hope that in the not-too-distant future a Committee of this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise that argument a little more closely.
	Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I am also cautious about the value of intelligence from Saudi Arabia. I am not picking on that country, because that is the nature of the case that we are considering. Year after year, the Government's human rights reports comment on infringements of human rights in Saudi Arabiafor example, torture and ill treatment in prison. I feel uncomfortable in assuming that information gathered by intelligence services will always be reliable in a society where, as the Government have pointed out, there is very limited press freedom, the rule of law is not as robust as in other countries and there is torture and maltreatment in prisons. The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the case of Sandy Mitchell; I will not repeat that.
	I acknowledge that we are going back three years and accept that the Government will argue that there has been massive progress in the past two years. I hope that there has been, but I remain uncomfortable about accepting on face value intelligence from a country that has had, and does have, serious problems with human rights.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend is right to raise this point. I assure him that the Government would certainly not accept evidence of any sort that might have been obtained through torture, and that any evidence that we receive is examined very carefully for all those variablesnot only torture.

Roger Berry: Of course, I accept my hon. Friend's assurance. I can, however, appreciate the enormous difficulties in distinguishing which sorts of information can be acceptable and which cannot.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good case. Further to the plausibility of the argument that Saudi Arabia would not co-operate, does he share my concern that the declaration, in the national security interest, can be used at any time in the future by any Government Department facing uncomfortable inquiries with regard to British interests, which would, merely by doing so, cloak itself in immunity from any further investigations without having to provide any evidence?

Roger Berry: I am happy to accept the argument of a Government whom I support that the security interest was a serious consideration, not a way of getting round the OECD convention. However, I am terrified by the prospect of that conventionwhich I always gave the Government credit for signing, no doubt for the best of motivesbeing misinterpreted to the effect that it can be got round merely by saying security interests or foreign policy objectives. I also fear that the fact that the case was suspended before it could be brought to a conclusion on its legal merits sends a message to companies that are trading with countries in which we have a strategic interest and might feel that it is easier to get away with bribery in those cases than in others.

Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that payments made over the table are not bribery, whereas payments made under the table are?

Roger Berry: One learns something new every day. I did not know that I could walk over to my colleagues on the Front Bench, hand them a thousand quid, and say, Give me a job in Government, and that Opposition Members would think that I was not attempting bribery. Now I know that that is what I should do.

Angus MacNeil: The point about bribery seems to be that if one is brazen about it, it is okay.
	Much has been made of the assertions regarding national security, and I have to question where they have come from. Have the heads of MI5 and MI6 backed those assertions emanating from the Government?

Roger Berry: The reason why I do not support an independent inquiry, as proposed in the motion, is that this involves issues of detail as to what influenced and brought about the SFO decision. That should be considered by the appropriate Committee of the House, which is how I would deal with it. Until we have a proper investigation, questions will remain unanswered.
	My final point relates to the impact on British business of any perception that bribery and corruption might not be tackled rigorously. I chaired a Trade and Industry Committee Sub-Committee, which considered the Export Credits Guarantee Department and its anti-bribery procedures. One message that British business conveyed time and again was that it supported the Government's policies to tackle corruption and bribery and believed that such policies were good for British business, which would be far better placed to win orders internationally if it were seen to be clean and supportive of anti-bribery measures.
	I hope that the outstanding concerns that many of us have about the SFO decision can be tackled, doubtless following the OECD's final determination on the matter. They need to be addressed. We cannot simply say that the decision was difficult and uncomfortable, without acknowledging that there are reasons for that feeling of discomfort. After a speech with more interventions than I can ever recall in my case, I am in a similar category.

Malcolm Rifkind: Although I disagree with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), I must say, in the light of my intervention, that he made what was technically a very good speech.
	I do not normally start with a presumption in favour of the Government, but I do so on this occasion, and nothing that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said has affected that. I accept that, on the face of it, the Government start from a bad position. We do not pay lip service to but genuinely believe in the rule of law, yet the Serious Fraud Office, either on its own initiative or through Government representations, which were undoubtedly made, decided to discontinue a serious inquiry that had been going on for a long time. That led to criticism from the OECD, and criticism from the South African President of double standards. Clearly, the position is embarrassing, and we would all have preferred to avoid it.
	That is not good enough, however. We must consider whether the rule of lawtechnically applied to mean that, when one has evidence, one brings a prosecution against those deemed responsibleshould always prevail or whether there can be circumstances, albeit rare, when that is not proper. It has already been said that, for many years, when deciding whether to bring a prosecution, it has been necessary to ask not only whether there is sufficient evidence but whether the public interest justifies it. In the debate in another place, my noble Friend Lord Mayhew, a former Attorney-General, referred to an occasion in Northern Ireland when he was involved in a decision not to go ahead with a prosecution because of the wider public interest.
	We must bear it in mind that, when we talk about our commitment to the rule of law, it is not an end in itself. It is simply a crucial method of trying to achieve a decent and just society, in which people's rights are recognised and justice can be applied. It is not an end in itself. If there is a wider public interest, there is nothing improper about taking that into account.
	The decision is not easy. It would be much more difficult to justify what has happened on the occasion that we are considering if an individual citizen's rights had been impeded. If, for example, someone is locked up for 90 days without trial, that is not easy to justify, even if there is a wider national interest, because a person's liberty has been removed. If someone is murdered or assaulted and, despite the availability of evidence, a prosecution is not initiated because of some wider public interest, that is disturbing because the decision impedes someone's rights.
	That is not the position that we are considering, however. Rightly or wrongly, the issue at stake is not the individual's rights but those of society. No one disputesindeed, the hon. Member for Twickenham agreedthat if there are legitimate issues of national security, it is right and proper for them occasionally to prevail over a decision to take a prosecution forward. The hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement with my interpretation of his views. The question that must be addressed is: were there legitimate reasons of national security that justified the decision in this case? The honest answer is that none of us in the Chamber knows, as we are not privy to the most important intelligence information available. The Serious Fraud Office did not know. I suspect that the Attorney-General may not have known, except at second or third hand. The person who has the ultimate responsibility is the Prime Minister.
	From my experience as Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary, when I had access to intelligence information and had to deal with Saudi Arabia over the course of five years, I can say two things. First, I have no doubt that the kind of co-operation that Saudi Arabia is giving to the United Kingdom with regard to counter-terrorism measures is of enormous importance in enabling us to succeed in our objectives of dealing with terrorism. Secondly, I can comment on whether the Saudis were serious in their threats that that co-operation would cease if the inquiry continued.
	Several hon. Members have said that it is absurd to argue that the Saudis would have discontinued their co-operation when their own regime is threatened by al-Qaeda. That is logically correct, but I was once told that logic was the art of going wrong with confidence, and I believe that that applies on this occasion. Anyone who understands the regime in force in Saudi Arabia knows that one is not dealing with a single head of statelike the Shah of Iran in his heydaybut with a royal family, a clan, who are intensely jealous of their privileges and determined to ensure that there will be no, as they would see it, unacceptable investigation of how they go about their lives.
	From my experience with the Saudis, I have no doubt that they would almost certainly have carried out the threat, even if they were cutting off their nose to spite their face. That was the dilemma that the Government faced. The judgment was a difficult one, and the Prime Ministerwho, I assume, ultimately gave the advice that had to be taken on board by the Attorney-General and the SFOwas right on this occasion.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. and learned Gentleman describes the investigation as perhaps unacceptable to the Saudi royal family. Would it have been unacceptable to him?

Malcolm Rifkind: I have no personal reason to wish to see such an examination continue. My interest and, I should imagine, that of all hon. Members, is our national security, and whether that would have been impeded by a loss of Saudi co-operation on one of the most crucial threats to the well-being of this country. If the evidence available to the Prime Minister indicated that that would have been soI see no reason to doubt that evidence in such a casethe proper conclusion was reached.

Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the constitutional principle on which we have all worked, which was set out by Hartley Shawcross when he was Attorney-General, is that Prime Ministers, and other Ministers, are entitled and indeed invited to make representations, but Law Officers ultimately have a separate decision to make and are entitled to come to a different view of what the public interest is?

Malcolm Rifkind: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not agree with the thrust of his remarks, because it is well accepted that one of the factors that Law Officers must take into account is the national interest. The greatest national interest of all is national security, and the member of the Government who has overall responsibility for national security is the Prime Minister. In practice, it is difficult if not impossible for an Attorney-General to say, I disagree with the Prime Minister as to the national security requirements of this country. He does not have such expertise, nor should he be expected to have it.

Simon Hughes: rose

Malcolm Rifkind: I am conscious of the limited time, and I hope that I will be forgiven for not giving way again.
	On this occasion, I accept the Prime Minister's judgment. However, we should not need to have this debate. We should have a society in which the view of the Prime Minister and the Law Officers on such issues is automatically accepted. It is one of the legacies of Iraq, the decisions taken at that time and the whole atmosphere created by the judgments and misjudgments made that even when the Prime Minister and Law Officers assure the House that national security would have been threatened, many hon. Members find it almost impossible to accept their good faith. That is perhaps the real tragedy of the issue that we are discussing today.

Martin Horwood: I am conscious of the time, so I shall try to be brief.
	This is a vital debate. The Government argued quite aggressively that there was a national interest in the case being dropped, and even that such a decision was compatible with the OECD convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. Those are highly debatable points, and I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) in disputing them, but mine is a different argument. My argument is that there were simple and vital reasons to continue the investigation, and that they were not considered.
	On 24 January, I questioned the Secretary of State for International Development. In answering, he revealedastonishinglythat he had not been consulted by the Attorney-General over the dropping of the BAE Systems case. He rather disingenuously suggested that that was because the only material conversation was taking place between the Attorney-General and the Serious Fraud Office, but of course that was not the case. The Attorney-General sought the advice of the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence, and also the views of the Prime Minister. In fact, the Prime Minister was extremely generous with his views: the answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) revealed that he had updated advice in September 2006 and again in December 2006. He had given his views on three occasions.
	The one Minister who was not consulted was the very Minister who was charged with pursuing Government policy on corruption and bribery in international corporate deals. Let me, for a moment, praise Government policy, because Government policy on bribery and corruption in this particular respect is very good on paper. Let me give the House chapter and verse. On 26 October, the Secretary of State for International Development set out the reasons for the anti-corruption plan very eloquently. He said:
	Bad governance can be caused or made worse by the actions of rich countries and their companies. For every bribe taken, there has to be a bribe giver.
	He said:
	we can and must do more.
	He said:
	Our new anti-corruption action plan will help us to do that by investigating and prosecuting bribery cases.[ Official Report, 26 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 1739.]
	In other words, there is a virtue in prosecuting bribery cases even when it is otherwise inconvenient to do so. They should be pursued, and there is a national interest in pursuing them.
	Let us examine the detail of the United Kingdom action plan to combat international corruption. It states that we should
	Fully implement the new OECD 'action statement' on export credits.
	That documentthere is quite a paper trail heretalks of
	Informing exporters and, where appropriate, applicants, requesting support about the legal consequences of bribery in international business transactions.
	That is rather difficult to do. It is rather difficult to demonstrate the consequences of bribery if the consequence is nothing when a case is dropped. Of course, we cannot and would not want to assert that there was definitely bribery in the precise case involving BAE Systems that was investigated by the Serious Fraud Office, but that cannot be demonstrated because the case was not seen through to its end.
	The second paragraph of the action plan talks of strengthening
	the UK's implementation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
	According to the relevant document, enterprises should
	Enhance the transparency of their
	companies'
	activities in the fight against bribery and extortion.
	What better way to demonstrate transparency than by seeing such investigations through to their logical conclusion? We would all hope that, in the case of BAE Systems, its innocence would be demonstrated.
	The OECD document goes on to explain why this is so important. It says:
	Bribery and corruption are not only damaging to democratic institutes and the governance of corporations, but they also impede efforts to reduce poverty. In particular, the diversion of funds through corrupt practices undermines attempts by citizens to achieve higher levels of economic, social and environmental welfare. Enterprises have an important role to play in combating these practices.
	If the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is looking for an economic argument for continuing investigations of this kind, that is it.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but another point concerns the definition of what constitutes corruption. There is an argument that we badly need a new corruption Act, and that point has been made on many occasions, but unless or until we have a new corruption Act we are left with the existing legislation. As I have said, given the scope of the existing legislation I am left with the impression that the OECD is likely to have some difficulty in concluding that what was taking place in relation to Saudi Arabia constituted an offence.

Martin Horwood: I think the hon. Gentleman is stepping on the SFO's territory here. I do not think that was actually the reason why the case was dropped. What I have said about the impact on overseas development and the overall economic welfare of our relations with many other nations begins to illustrate the scale of the damage done by the Government's actions in this case. Not only have we damaged the well deserved reputation of British companies for transparency and honesty, not only have we appeared to kowtow before an undemocratic monarchy with an abysmal human rights record, not only have we damaged our own credibility in the OECD to the detriment of other negotiations within that organisation, and not only have we damaged the credibility of the SFO by putting it under exactly the kind of political pressure that is expressly forbidden by article 5 of the OECD convention, but we have damaged the very work that DFID Ministers, staff and partners around the world have laboured tirelessly to deliver.

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points, and they are points that we had to consider in relation to the decision made by the director of the SFO and the view taken of that by the Law Officers. We had to consider the impact that there might be on our international reputation and the burden we faced in seeking to pursue allegationswhich is what they wereof corruption, as against what was on the other side of the scales, which was the legal requirement to consider the public interest and the national security of this country. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the issues he mentions were considered, but he is setting out only one side of the case in regard to them, whereas the problem was that there were other issues on the other side of the scales.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful for that reply, but I do not see any evidence that the issues were truly considered. The Minister responsible for pursuing the anti-corruption action plan was not even consulted, as he has clarified to the House. Therefore how on earth can the Government have considered fully the implications of that side of the public interest argument? That Minister has made the case powerfully in Parliament that, by seeming to hold back on the prosecution of bribery and corruption cases ourselves, we give permission to other companies and other countries to take a softer line too.
	The arguments made by the Attorney-General in another place appear to be inhabiting an Alice in Wonderland world where people can contradict themselves within seconds. At one point he said that UK-Saudi security relations were an important factor, and he then said, in relation to obeying the OECD convention that prohibits taking into account relations with other states, that we did not do sohe used a phrase similar to that. I am amazed that anyone can contradict themselves within seconds in that way and expect no one to notice. Luckily, 130 campaign groups and charities around the world did notice, from India's Public Interest Research Centre to the Jordan Transparency Forum to our own branches of Amnesty International, Oxfam, Friends of the Earth and Transparency International. They all called on the UK Government to abide by their own policies and to reopen the investigation. The Liberal Democrats noticed, too, as have Members of all parties who share our concerns.
	There might have been a national interest consideration that weighed in favour of dropping the case, but there was also a considerable and vital national and international interest in continuing it and, shamefully, I do not think that that was even considered.

Simon Hughes: The decision to call this debate has proved worth while. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) rightly confirmed that the subjects it addresses are worth debating. I will seek to deal with comments made by colleagues in the course of the debate and with other matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was criticised for not dealing with, but which he did not deal with because we have adopted a double-handed approach with one Member opening and another winding up so we shared out the work between us.
	I want to try to establish the reason why we say that the matter under discussion is of important public interest for various reasons. As has been agreed, the matter dates back to a contract first entered into in the mid-1980s. It was a significant contract that turned out to be worth a significant amount of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham made the case that whether it is in the long-term interests of this country that that deal between BAE Systems and the Saudi authorities was entered into, and then continued as it has been since, was controversial at the time and, like the decisions taken recently, can only be viewed in the round. Of course a contract for jobs in this country in an industry in which we have expertise involving a large employer with a good reputation is potentially beneficialof course a contract with an ally, whatever its failings, is potentially beneficial. However, from the beginning there was independent evidencethe Bank of England is as good a witness to call as anythat this was not an unqualified bonus: that it was not thought to be an unarguably beneficial contract. At the end of this exercise, only time will tell and only full information being revealed will show us whether the national interest has, on balance, been served by the contract, which began back in the 1980s.
	Nobody on the Liberal Democrat Benches has ever argued thatwhere we can do so legitimately and properly, at home or abroadwe should not seek work and contracts for British companies. It is not part of our case that we should not have a defence industry, and we have argued in support of strengthening our conventional defence, not weakening it. Nobody has argued that we should not have dealings with other countries. Our argument is about how matters have progressed, what the public know and whether, in the end, those involved have stayed on the right side of the law.
	It was not Liberal Democrats whoto use the Solicitor-General's phrasestarted a campaign of innuendo. Allegations surfaced back in the 1980s, which is why the National Audit Office, as the watchdog of public finance, held an inquiry on Parliament's behalf and brought its report to the Public Accounts Committee. Yes, it was a long time ago, and I accept that it is a decision for Parliament, not the Government, as to whether an NAO report is published. However, it is important to publish the report because, although it may or may not tell us something about the early history of these dealings, this is the only time in the NAO's history that such a report has not been published. The current Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said in an intervention that he, having been briefed, believes that nothing suggested that there was corruption or that offences were committed by the Ministry of Defence. If so, that is all the more reason why the report should be released.
	Our motion calls for the report to be released, and if it is passed, that will be a clear indication that it should be released. I hope that the Conservatives will reflect on the fact that, if they vote against the motion, which we will certainly put to the vote, they will be voting against, among other things, the proposal that the NAO report, which remains secret, should come out into the open.
	The Serious Fraud Office, having been set up in 1988, started its investigations. There was a preliminary investigation in 2001, and questions and early-day motions were tabled in this House not only by Liberal Democrats, but by colleagues on the Government side who expressed concern about this issue. It was out in the open, and questions were regularly asked of Ministers. In the end, the SFO started a serious investigation, as it should. That is what it is there for, and what Parliament wanted it to do.
	Colleagues are of course right to say that until 2001, when we passed new legislation on this issue, it was much more difficult to deal with bribery and corruptionto deal with the paying of money outside a contract to achieve a benefit that one would not otherwise get without that wrongful payment, which is a simple principle to understand. So the 2001 legislation that the Labour Government introduced was welcome, and a new regimea new backclothbecame part of the landscape from then on.
	I share the view of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that it is a great frustration to many that it is, however, now nine years since a new bribery Bill was contemplated. I am not blaming the Government entirely for that. I know what happenedsuch a Bill came up for scrutiny, and the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee rejected the idea of proceeding with it. There has since been a Home Office consultation paper, but our approach to this issue will not appear serious to this country, let alone to the rest of the world, until the other part of the legislative packageserious anti-bribery legislationis in place. I call on the Government and the Minister for the Middle East to indicate that they will turn the planned anti-bribery Bill into a reality, so that we can have a new anti-bribery Act.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with that and of course, such a Bill would allow us to have a sensible debate about definitions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, being a lawyer, definitions are rather important in this regard, particularly a definition of what constitutes, or might not constitute, a criminal offence. That is why it is so important that we examine this issue.

Simon Hughes: I agree entirely. I can do no more than say that the Liberal Democrats want that to happen soon.
	Next came the reports in early December that the Saudi Arabians were thinking of taking a defence order from this country and giving it to France. Within days of that reporta fortnight at mostthe Attorney-General made a statement to the House of Lords and the Solicitor-General made one to this House, late on a Thursday evening, to inform us that the decision had been taken that the SFO investigation should be discontinued. I respect the fact that the Solicitor-General said that he could not give me a full answer to my question, but he appears to have confirmed this afternoon that the discussion about whether lesser charges should be broughtthe Attorney-General confirmed that it happenedagainst lesser individuals in return for an agreement that the people from BAE Systems would plead guilty also happened in December last year. Suddenly, as bank accounts became accessible in Switzerland and charges were being contemplated in London, there was huge activity in Riyadh and elsewhere that quickly resulted in the announcement that the investigation would be discontinued.

Angus MacNeil: Is not it strange that an inquiry that rumbled on for two years was discontinued just as all the factors that the hon. Gentleman mentions came to a head? The inquiry was ended a matter of days later, which undermines the whole national security argument that the Government have advanced.

Simon Hughes: I shall come to the issue of national security, because in the end it clearly determined the decision. However, I first wish to take the series of events to its conclusion. The statements were made in both Houses on a Thursday evening. The following day the Prime Minister was asked about the decision to discontinue the prosecution. Any normal reading of what he said makes it clear that it was his call that the proceedings were discontinued.
	Since those few days in December, what troubles many people is that the argument for the discontinuation of the prosecution appears to have shifted, depending on who was explaining the reasons. For example, the Attorney-General has said both privately and publicly that there were two factors in his mind and that of the director of the Serious Fraud Office. The same two factors are involved in the decision on any prosecution. The first is whether it has a better than 50 per cent. chance of success and the second is whether it is in the public interest. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) alluded to different types of prosecution, but the same two considerations apply equally every day, whether on decisions to prosecute old ladies who take things from supermarkets or on huge international contracts.
	One of the reasons given on 14 and 15 December, which later appeared to be less secure, was that the director of the Serious Fraud Office thought that there was no more mileage in the prosecution. However, we know that he thought that further investigation might have led somewhere because he confirmed it a day or two later, and he had a difference of view with the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General took a different view and said so. His view was that it was unlikely that even further months of investigation would lead to a successful conclusion.
	The security and intelligence services were also prayed in aid. It is still not clear what they said to Ministers, to the ambassador, to the director or to Law Officers. When the Attorney-General was questioned about that in the other place, in the debate initiated by Baroness Williams last weekit was a positive and engaged debate in which many of my colleagues took parthe said:
	I need to deal with one or two matters specifically. First, the position of SIS, the secret intelligence agency was raised ... SIS has made it clear publicly that it shared the concerns of others in government over the possible consequences for the public interest of the SFO investigation.
	I will not read the whole paragraph into the record, but hon. Members can check that I am not misrepresenting by omission. However, the Attorney-General went on to say:
	As I said on 18 January, before the SFO decision was taken, I discussed the matter directly with the chief of SIS. The SIS has authorised me to say that it is clear about the importance of the Saudi counterterrorist effort to the UK.
	No one can argue with that: of course a relationship with an ally to deal with terrorism is valuable. The Attorney-General went on to say that the view of the SIS was
	that it would not be possible to replicate the level of counter-terrorism effort that had been achieved with the Saudis on UK/Saudi aspects of the problem if it were necessary to work at one remove, via the USA, for example. Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 2007; Vol. 689, c. 379.]
	We accept that too, but it is at least likely that the intelligence-sharing exercise by the UK Government and their agencies and the Saudi Government and their agencies is as valuable to Saudi Arabia as it is to us. Given that al-Qaeda's prime objective is to destroy the house of Saud, which it believes has betrayed and corrupted the Islamic tradition, Saudi Arabia has a clear interest in making sure that it gets the intelligence that the UK, as a huge and effective centre for intelligence, acquires.
	There is no dispute about what the Attorney-General quotes the director of the SIS as saying. What has never been clear is that the director of the SIS gave a warning that caused the decision not to pursue the investigation to be taken.

Mike O'Brien: The SIS is happy for me to tell the House that it considered that there would be a risk to the UK's national security interests if the al-Yamamah investigation were pursued. It had been informed of a threat to curtail co-operation directly.

Simon Hughes: I understand that, and do not dissent. Of course I accept what the Solicitor-General says and what he has been told. The question that exercises us is as follows: if the Prime Minister and the Defence and Foreign Secretaries say, on advice, that a case poses a risk to our national security, must that automatically be something with which the Attorney-General cannot disagree? I put that point to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea, who was both Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary.
	The tradition has always been that Law Officers give advice independent from the Government. We believe that the public interest of the UK is not confined to questions about whether a case might pose a risk to our relations with Saudi Arabia. It also has to do with the risk that corruption poses to the wider interests of our commercial reputation around the world. It is in the public interest to prevent that, and that is why we want to ensure that Law Officers' decisions are guided by the balance of all our interests.
	However, we are not persuaded by the evidence that we have seen so far that the balance of considerations in this case was appropriate. Every time that the Prime Minister spoke, he appeared to add in questions of jobs and relations with other statesthe two things that the OECD convention makes it clear cannot be considered in that context.

Mike O'Brien: I may regret saying this, as I am sure that it will produce a great deal of comment, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Law Officers and the director of the SFO have to make independent judgments. He is aware of the views of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because they have been publicly expressed. He is also aware that there were a number of what are called Shawcross exercises, which are perfectly proper. He is aware too of the nature of the Prime Minister's response on those occasions, and of their dates. He is, therefore, aware that the director of the SFO and the Law Officers took a view at certain points that the investigation should continue. However, there came a pointin December last yearwhen the view was taken that it would take 18 months to reach a decision about whether a prosecution could be brought. That 18 months of further investigation had to be weighed in the balance with national security issues, so the independence of the Law Officers and the director of the SFO is clearly demonstrated in the sequence of events relating to those Shawcross exercises.

Simon Hughes: I completely understand that argument, but it would have been perfectly proper for Law Officers to respond to the Prime Minister, and through him to others involved in the investigation, including BAE and the Saudi Arabians, that although they understood that it was in the interests of those people to discontinue, it was in the greater public interest to see the investigation through to its conclusion. The Law Officers could have said that they would allow the independent, non-political prosecuting authority to complete its work.
	I share the Solicitor-General's sentiments about the director of the SFO, who is well respected. The director said:
	There is no guarantee that charges will be brought until you have completed the investigation.
	We know that access to bank accounts had just been opened. We know from people who talked to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) that the police were on the trail. We know that the investigators felt they were getting somewhere, yet just at that moment the investigation was discontinued.
	I realise that there was pressure from an important ally. There was also huge pressure from BAE, which from all the evidencenot least that cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenhamis probably the most effective manufacturing lobbyist in the UK. That is not a criticism of the company; the Government have clearly been responsive to its lobbying. I accept that there was great pressure, but it was still possible for Law Officers to resist it and to say that the investigation should go on. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are not obliged to agree with the director of the SFOas they know; they could have taken a different decision. The interests of dealing with corruption are sufficiently important that the presumption should have been in favour of continuing the investigation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and I cannot be absolutely certain whether our judgment is right, because we do not have all the information. That is why one of the things called for in our motion, and by my noble Friend Lord Goodhart in the other place last week, is an inquiry into what has happened thus far to bring it into the open. On 1 February, my noble Friend Lord Garden asked the Attorney-General whether we could see the correspondence and all communications. The Attorney-General said that he would go away and think about ithe did not say yes or noso I repeat my noble Friend's request. Perhaps the Minister for the Middle East will answer when he responds to the debate. Will Law Officers and Ministers put into the public domain all the evidencethe communications, messages and advicethat led to the decision taken on 14 December and brought Law Officers to Parliament? Only then will we know whether there was a proper balance between the security interests, in terms of intelligence between the UK and Saudi Arabia, the non-consideration of things such as jobs and relationships with another country, which is not allowed under the OECD convention, and whether pursuing a bribery investigation at the highest publicly known level was in our national interest.
	Two relevant Ministers appear not to have been consulted: the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, although he clearly had an interest; and the Secretary of State for International Development, even though he was appointed by the Prime Minister in June last year to lead anti-corruption activity in Whitehall.
	If we can see those papers and documents, we will know the answers to those questions. The Minister may say that there may be some confidential issues to do with national interests, and of course there may, but there are forums in this place for documents to be revealed. We have an Intelligence and Security Committee, which can meet in private and which is made up of representatives of Parliament. There are ways in which that inquiry can be carried out and we ask for that to happen.
	We are clear that the matter raises the issue of the country's international reputation. It is not just us saying that, or voluntary organisations such as Transparency International and Campaign Against Arms Trade; it is organisations such as the OECD. The OECD is investigating what has happened. That is not an invention. It is coming back and asking for information in March. It clearly stated:
	In the context of its regular exchange of views
	in December
	on recent developments, the Working Group engaged in discussions
	and
	has serious concerns as to whether the decision was consistent with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and will discuss further the issue in March 2007.
	For us, there are two substantive matters that remain to be dealt with. They go to the heart of confidence in the Government and in Law Officers, whoever they may be personally. There is the question of how we restore a reputation that, in the international community, has been spoilt by an illegal decision to go to war in Iraq nearly four years ago, following advice from Law Officers, which was not disclosed, and which involved some distortion of intelligence and a dossier that said one thing, but had no evidence to back it up. That advice was what gave the Prime Minister the justification for coming to Parliament to ask for the decision that Parliament took. This matter has again allowed Law Officers to be put in the position of taking a controversial decision that is not supported by the evidence. The problem for Law Officers, whoever they may be, is if they now think that they will have credibility if they are confronted with a Crown Prosecution Service file saying that they will have to consider what to do about cash for peerages. I fear that the Solicitor-General must be absolutely clear: there will not be any credibility.

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has just said that Law Officers made a decision. In fact, it was the director of the Serious Fraud Office who made it, but we concurred with it. The hon. Gentleman said that the decision was made without evidence, but, on the contrary, we have been at pains to explain what that evidence was and that we did in fact, at least as far as the Law Officers were concerned, speak to senior members of the intelligence community and undertake a Shawcross exercise. We made it clear in all our statements that there was evidence before us, and, indeed, the director of the Serious Fraud Office had evidence from the Shawcross exercise before him. I entirely dispute the hon. Gentleman's claim that the decision was made without evidence. It was made after great and careful consideration.

Simon Hughes: I want to conclude, because we are keen to hear the response from the Minister for the Middle East. What have we got? Where are we in politics in Britain on this issue today? We have a Serious Fraud Office that has suffered from a loss of morale and self-confidence. We have an incomplete investigation, which was called off when we knew people were getting hot on the trail.

Khalid Mahmood: rose

Simon Hughes: I am not going to give way.
	We had, by the Attorney-General's own admission, consideration given to bringing forward lesser charges in return for a plea bargain. We have inconsistent explanations of whose decision it really was to discontinue the investigation. We have the only example in the history of the National Audit Office of a report not being published. We have had a severe blow to the credibility of the United Kingdom as a country committed to leading the international fight against corruption.
	We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are clear what we should have and what we as a country would benefit from: a change in the decision not to publish the NAO report; an inquiry into the events leading up to the decision to discontinue the investigation into the BAE and Saudi Arabian arms deals; a tough new corruption Act that will give us much more effective tools for dealing with corruption at home and abroad; a change in the constitutional relationship between Law Officers, the Government and Parliament; and a restoration of the principle that the national interest of the UK is to defend, uphold and promote the rule of law above everything, so that we have a reputation for integrity at home and abroad. In the words of my noble Friend Lord Garden last week,
	is it not time to think again where the national interest lies? The national interest is to promote the rule of law and re-establish the United Kingdom's international reputation.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 2007; Vol. 689, c. 364.]
	That is why we tabled the motion and I hope that colleagues on both sides of the House will support us.

Kim Howells: I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this afternoon's debate, which has been wide-ranging. I will certainly endeavour to answer the questions raised, but the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spoke for 27 minutes and I have only about 15 left.

Rob Marris: It is all about quality.

Kim Howells: Yes, it is.
	As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said in his opening statement and as the Attorney-General has stated on earlier occasions, the fundamental reason why the Serious Fraud Office discontinued the investigations into BAE Systems concerning payments in relation to the al-Yamamah contract with Saudi Arabia was to safeguard national and international security.
	As both the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General have also stated very clearly, UK co-operation with Saudi Arabia in the counter-terrorism field is of critical importance. Saudi Arabia is a source of highly valuable intelligence on al-Qaeda and other terrorist activity that represents a threat to the UK, to our citizens and to our armed forces. I would like to deal with that in more detail.
	There is a high threat of terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Attacks have taken various forms. At their height in 2003 and 2004, they included kidnappings, large-scale truck bombings of residential compounds and Saudi Government offices, an attack on the US consulate in Jeddah, targeted shootings of individuals, small-scale car bombings, parcel bombings and the bombing of shopping areas. The Saudi security forces are working hard to maintain enhanced security measures and have succeeded in disrupting terrorist operations, killing and capturing terrorists, and seizing arms and vehicle bombs. I would like to remind the House that UK citizens have been the victims of several such terrorist incidents in the region, including the attack on a British school in the United Arab Emirates

John Pugh: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: I do not have much time, I am afraid.
	The siege in Riyadh and the fact that a number of those forming the 9/11 cell were Saudi citizens shows that this is not just a theoretical terrorist threat, but a real one. Our need for Saudi intelligence co-operation is beyond doubt.

John Pugh: The Minister has somehow missed out the fact that British citizens have been arrested for terrorism by the Saudi Governmentwrongly, and despite the fact that they were in denial of any terrorism.

Kim Howells: I have met those gentlemen and I have every sympathy with their terrible experience.  [Interruption.] It is all very well for a Scottish National Member to say that a bit of sympathy is not very helpful, but we tried very hard to help those gentlemen. People such as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) should not speak in such an ignorant way about those situations. There has been too much flippancy about that.
	I remind the House that Saudi Arabia has its own problems with al-Qaedathere is no question about thatyet much of the money for al-Qaeda also comes from Saudi Arabia. In a recent visit to Waziristan, I was told by a member of the frontier corps that when they had examined bodies after a battle, they discovered that the military leader of an al-Qaeda detachment had been a Chechen, that a Turkoman was the armourer and the quartermaster, and that the money bags, as always with these detachments, was a Saudi. We ignore that fact at our peril. It is extremely important to recognise that we need the co-operation of the Saudis in these matters. It must be a very important consideration. The madrassahs that we are worried about in Pakistan are almost entirely funded by Saudi money. The Saudis are worried about that, President Musharraf is certainly worried about it, and I will be open with the House and say that we are very worried about it. To pretend that this is some kind of fringe consideration is nonsense.
	The United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have a long history of friendship, understanding and co-operation. Saudi Arabia is a key ally in the region, and our co-operation covers regional and international issues, counter-terrorism, energy security, trade and investment.
	Many questions have been raised today. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. His contribution was a great deal more measured than that of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)it would have been difficult not to be. I sympathised with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey when he asked why the National Audit Office report from the earlier period was not being published. He has been in the House for roughly the same length of time as I have. I thought that that report was produced before 1992. I remember being appointed to the Public Accounts Committee and feeling very chuffed about it. I turned up to my first sitting, only to be told by the Chairman, Sir Robert Sheldon, after he had welcomed me on to the Committee, that, like everyone else, I would have to leave the room because the only people who could read the report were the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, who had written it, Sir Robert himself and the deputy Chairman.
	We never saw that report again. I do not think that anyone has. There could be many reasons for that, and some of them might be to do with the report putting members of the security services in danger. I meet a lot of our brave security services personnel abroad, and I know that they are frequently in great danger. However, the hon. Gentleman has asked a perfectly reasonable question about the publication of the report, and I think that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee ought to take his request seriously. The Committee has dedicated debates in the House, and this would be a good subject for such a debate.
	At the time, we were told that the report would not be publishednobody tried to hide that factbecause there were 40,000 jobs riding on the al-Yamamah deal. That seemed to everyone a good reason not to publish it, at the time. I do not remember anyoneapart from my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is always the star of the Public Accounts Committeestanding up in the House to say that it should be published and that we should know what was going on.

John Pugh: Will the Minister give way?

Kim Howells: No, I do not have time; the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey went on for 27 minutes.
	I am absolutely sure that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey took the right attitude in requesting the publication of that report, and in giving the reasons that he gave. The hon. Member for Twickenham, however, was a different matter. He made a real blooper when he said that, according to the OECD, Britain was the least compliant country with the convention, apart from Italy. No OECD statement to that effect has ever been made, and it is certainly not the case.
	If we are talking about comparisons between the levels of bribery across major exporting countries, we need look no further than Transparency International's most recent Bribe Payers Index, from autumn 2006, which states that UK-based companies are the least likely in the G7 countries to pay bribes in international business transactions. Next month, the United Kingdom will submit to the OECD an update of progress made on the overall implementation of the OECD convention. After discussions in Paris on 12 to 14 March, we plan to present a report on the subject to the House, so that Members can debate the matter for themselves.
	None of that will count for the hon. Member for Twickenham and his friends, however. They have rarely let the facts get in the way of a good story, and they do not intend to start now. I can just picture how the froth of innuendo, rumour and scandal that we heard at the start of the debate was concocted. No one enjoys a good conspiracy theory better than a Liberal Democrat politician. That froth is the Liberal Democrats' favourite drink, and it is usually drunk through a straw and put to one side of the mouth while they swap fantasies and gossip with journalists who hang around the Security Service like ageing groupies around an adored pop star. That is the company that the Liberal Democrats hang out with, and we ought to remember it; that is who they deal with, and they never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
	Of course, that froth quickly turns to mud, and some Liberal Democrats are rather fond of throwing it around. They do not care who it lands on, or whose reputation is stained, as long as they believe that they are getting votes from it. They do not care if it besmirches the country's reputation, either. That is why the hon. Member for Twickenham told us that piece of nonsense about the OECD report; he does not care. The Liberal Democrats do not care a bit if Britain is dragged into the mud by slurs. As long as they can bask among the mad ranks of their fellow conspiracy theorists, they will enjoy the slurs for as long as they last.
	To compare this country's record unfavourably with those of some of our European neighbours, whose records are frankly appalling, is mad, bad, and another case of the self-flagellation so beloved by the liberal press and their spokesmen in this country. I spend a great deal of my time meeting the Governments of other countries, and I know of no other country, and no other major economy, that enjoys the United Kingdom's reputation for honesty and openness. The Liberal Democrats ought to remember that, instead of trying to drag the country through the mud whenever they open their mouths.
	I cannot remember which Liberal Democrat Member asked a question on the subject, but I want to reinforce the point that it was the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which was implemented in 2002, that clarified the law and made it absolutely clear that the bribery of a foreign official was an offence. That is the UK's position, particularly with regard to the OECD. It could be dangerous if the Government appeared to agree that no prosecution could be brought prior to the introduction of the 2001 Act. That is a reasonable subject for debate, but the Government's record should not be dragged down by the kind of innuendo and absolute nonsense that we heard earlier.
	Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom have had a long relationship, and I remind hon. Members that at the heart of that relationship is our strong partnership on global counter-terrorism efforts. We enjoy a highly productive intelligence relationship with good operational results, and that should not be pooh-poohed. We work closely with a number of Saudi security organisations, and we believe that both sides gain from that co-operation. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General repeated today, had the Serious Fraud Office investigation continued, there would have been a real danger that Saudi Arabia would have withdrawn its co-operation in that field, depriving the United Kingdom of a key partner and putting the lives of UK citizens at risk. It was on the basis of that risk that the director of the Serious Fraud Office concluded that the investigation should be halted.
	Let me try to address claims that the SFO's decision proves that the Government are soft on corruption. As my hon. and learned Friend said at the start of the debate, the Government are strongly committed to tackling corruption, and we are doing much, much more on a range of aspects of fighting corruption. As he reminded us, the Government pioneered the extractive industries transparency initiative, which supports improved governance in resource-rich countries through the full publication and validation of company payments and Government revenues from oil, gas and mining. The remarkable progress made by the EITI in the past four years is widely acknowledged. That in itself could transform the lives of many people living in Africa and other continents. We have their lives in mind as we try to make sure that we tackle corruption everywhere, and that effort should not be besmirched by the kind of innuendo that we have heard today.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	 The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. deputy speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes that the Serious Fraud Office's (SFO) decision to discontinue its investigation into BAE Systems plc and Saudi Arabia was taken independently by the Director of the SFO on grounds of national security in the public interest and in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors; further notes that the SFO is vigorously pursuing a number of other lines of investigation in relation to BAE Systems plc; welcomes the steps being taken by the Government to tackle international corruption; and further welcomes the Government's commitment to compliance with the United Kingdom's obligation under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

merchant shipping

That the Merchant Shipping (Inland Waterway and Limited Coastal Operations) (Boatmasters' Qualifications and Hours of Work) Regulations 2006 (S.I., 2006, No. 3223), dated 4th December 2006, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be revoked. [Mr. Burstow.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 295.

Question accordingly negatived.

Government's Crime Record

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the second debate on an Opposition motion. I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Nicholas Clegg: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the increasing evidence of a crisis in the criminal justice system, with excessive levels of prison overcrowding, failure to tackle rising reoffending rates, unacceptable breach rates of the Government's anti-social behaviour measures, widespread public fear of crime and the judiciary's concern over Government sentencing policy; believes that a new direction in Government policy prioritising administrative competence over media-driven legislative initiatives is urgently required; calls on the Government to make prison work by tripling the numbers of prisoners doing paid work and making education and training compulsory, with contributions from earnings going towards a victim compensation fund; calls for measures to allow sentences to mean what they say; further calls for the abandonment of the expensive identity cards scheme to allow funding for a sustainable increase in police numbers; urges the Government to divert money allocated to the latest prison building programme towards the expansion of secure and semi-secure mental health treatment facilities; and further calls on the Government to increase the use of restorative community justice panels to help reduce repeat crime, increase the use of rigorous and visible non-custodial sentences as a viable alternative to short-term prison sentences and change licensing provision to give local communities greater say over the closure of pubs and clubs which contribute to alcohol-fuelled violence.
	This debate is extremely timely. For 10 years the Government have presented us with an endless menu of tough rhetoric on crime and law and order and a barrage of frenzied new law-making, and now we are entitled to ask questions. By coincidence, it is 10 months almost to the day since the first revelation in a series of scandals that have rocked the Home Office. Members will recall that in April last year it was first revealed that more than 1,000 foreign offenders who had been recommended for deportation by British courts were not being deported. So it is a good time to ask what has happened in the last 10 years. What is the result of all the tough talk? Has all the legislation really made a difference? What has gone so spectacularly wrong, and why?
	If we look objectively at almost any aspect of the criminal justice systemevery body, every institutionit is impossible to claim other than that almost every pillar of the system is in a state of perhaps irremediable crisis.  [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but it is no laughing matter. We have a prison system that is bursting at the seams, with offenders moved at dead of night from one overcrowded prison cell to another and an epidemic of violenceprisoner on prisoner, prisoner on officerwhich has risen by 500 per cent. in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, we have no space, resources or time for the rehabilitation that is necessary to deal with reoffending rates that have also gone through the roof. It is no laughing matter that our prisons are at breaking point.

Margaret Moran: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal Democrat policy of ending jail sentences for drug possession would be one element of his strategy to solve the problem of overcrowded prisons, and will he explain that policy to people in the outside world who do not think that it is a sensible proposition?

Nicholas Clegg: I anticipated that that question would be asked, because I read about it in the parliamentary Labour party briefing on the Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate. I note that the hon. Lady has referred closely to what is in the briefing, and if she does not have the wit or the independence of mind to ask her own question, rather than be spoon-fed by party managers, she does not deserve a response.
	Reoffending rates are at an unprecedented high level: 66 per cent. of all offenders who go to prison reoffend within two years, and 92 per cent. of all male offenders who serve short-term prison sentences of three months or less reoffend. That is a system of the mad house; offenders go straight into prison and then come out and reoffend, leaving a trail of innocent victims in their wake.
	Our judiciary are in near open revolt against the Government, as one Home Secretary after another has vilified and blamed judges for taking decisions that invariably faithfully follow sentencing guidelines that flow from the Government's own legislation. The probation service is on its knees; it is vilified by one Home Secretary after another, and under-resourced and overstretched.

Denis MacShane: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's Jeremiahs about increasing crime, but if that is the case, why did the Sheffield and Rotherham  Star, which covers his constituency and mine, state in its headline of last Monday that crime in South Yorkshire has fallen?

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. Gentleman is interested in European Union affairs and, as he knows, a recent EU report revealed that non-violent crime has declined throughout the EU since about the middle of the 1990s. That has happened here as it has in other countries. The point is that in South Yorkshire and in the rest of the country [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should listen; the point is that the rate of decline in non-violent crime in South Yorkshire and the rest of the country has not been as fast as it has been in other countries. To my knowledge, Germany, France, Italy and Spain have not been indulging in a heady mix of populist rhetoric and frenzied law-making, but in those countries non-violent crime has declined more rapidly than it has in our country. Has new Labour solved the crime problem in Paris, Bremen or Madrid? I think not.
	There are wider reasons why non-violentnot violentcrime has gone down. Most criminologists agree that it is because of a relatively benign economic environment, and also because of the roll-out of anti-burglary technology that protects both cars and homes.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Clegg: No, I would like to make some progress, as time is limited.
	In contrast to non-violent crime, violent crime has doubled since 1998. Violent offenders are now more likely to get a caution than a conviction in court. Fewer than one in a hundred crimes is punished in court. Antisocial behaviour ordersthe great catch-all magic wand solution to everything, and the one-trick pony of the Prime Minister in dealing with antisocial behaviourare now breached more than 50 per cent. of the time. The Home Office, according to the Home Secretary himselfthere is no greater authorityis not fit for purpose. The report from the EU, which I referred to earlier, has confirmed that we are now the sick man of Europe in terms of crime. We are the most burgled country in Europe.

Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Clegg: I could go on. [Hon. Members: Go on.] I will go on, and then I will give way. Overall, gun crime has doubled since 1997. The Government have still not introduced the gun register promised after the Dunblane incident. Street crime and muggings are heading towards the 100,000 per year mark, following a rise of 8 per cent. last year.

Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that ASBOs are only 50 per cent. successful, although that would mean that there is 50 per cent. less crime and disturbance on the streets than would otherwise be the case. If what he says is accurate, is he in favour or against ASBOs? Have the Liberal Democrats changed their minds about ASBOsare they for or against them?

Nicholas Clegg: I refer the hon. Gentleman to his party's briefing. We voted in support of ASBOs in 1998, when they were first introduced. I have a note from the House of Commons Library that confirms our record. However, we have always said that they should not be overused, that they should not be overly relied upon to deal with the complex issues underlying antisocial behaviour, and that they should not be imposed in excessive numbers on young people. The record shows, in Committee and in this Chamber, that we have supported ASBOs but we have always expressed perfectly reasoned objections to them.
	Even an august academic report from King's college, released on 15 January, asserts that the Government's
	claims of success have been overstated and at times have been misleading,
	and it describes reoffending rates as one of the Government's most conspicuous failures. How has this dismal state of affairs come about, given that this Prime Minister has made tough talking his political trademark for the past 10 years? It is this Government who have launched one barrage of illiberal new legislation after another. There have been 63 Home Office Bills, and we are about to debate the 24th criminal justice Bill. More than 3,000 new criminal offences have been shoved on to the statute booktwo new offences for every day that this Parliament has sat since 1997. Frankly, if new offences, laws and legislation really could cure crime and antisocial behaviour, ours would be the first crime-free society in the history of this planet.

Helen Jones: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he is so concerned about antisocial behaviour, can he explain how his party's policy of allowing alcohol to be sold to 16-year-olds will improve the situation? People in my constituency would like to know how that would assist them.

Nicholas Clegg: I will ignore that, if I may.  [Interruption.] Does the hon. Lady seriously think that an arcane debate about what the precise drinking age limit should be would provide the simple catch-all solution to antisocial behaviour? If I look at the estates in my constituency where there are serious antisocial behaviour problems, what do I find? The greatest cause of complaint from residents is the lettings policy, in that new residents are coming on to the estates whom the sitting residents feel are not appropriate for those estates. The idea that this problem can be solved by a single solution or by a particular change in legislation is absurd and fatuous.

Willie Rennie: I am greatly concerned about the Government's never-ending attack on, and demonising of, young people. Does my hon. Friend think that the suggested curfews for young people are inappropriate, and that we should invest in more facilities and activities for them, so that we can get them off the streets and stop their drinking?

Nicholas Clegg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am frankly surprised by the gall of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) in talking about alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, given that such behaviour has rocketed under this Government; it takes some brass neck to do that.
	The Government live in an Alice in Wonderland world of their own, trapped in an unthinking faith in their own tough rhetoric, and oblivious to the fact that the public want not tough talk, but competence and effective policies that work and do not simply catch headlines.

Several hon. Members: rose

Nicholas Clegg: I want to offer some relief to agitated Labour Members. I want to suggest four ways in which the Government can get themselves out of this mess. First, they should stop digging when they are in a hole. They should abandon this headline-grabbing frenzy that has disfigured their approach to the criminal justice system for the past 10 years. The omens, of course, are not good. Do we all remember the headlines generated by the new Home Secretary in November, just in advance of the Queen's Speech? Let me remind those who do not. On 12 November 2006, the  Sunday Express ran the headline, Reid: the gloves come off. On 16 November,  The Independent headline ran, John Reid: 'Why I'm called a thug'. On 15 November, the  Liverpool Daily Post headline was, Only Labour tough enough. Even that sensitive newspaper  The Guardian ran the following headline on 16 November: Queen's Speech: Tough on crime, again.

Jane Kennedy: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given that we should judge political parties by what they do, rather than what they say, will he comment on the performance of the Liberal Democrats in government in Liverpool? They failed to support youth services, closed youth clubs and reduced the other services that are necessary in assisting the police in ensuring order. They also take every opportunity to attack the police on every public platform for their inability to be effective. It is not good enough for the Liberal Democrats to seek to present themselves here as the defenders of the police, when the police in Liverpool know that the situation is quite different.

Nicholas Clegg: I can only go by the discussions that I have had myself with the police in Liverpool. The right hon. Lady will know about the Matrix team which works to combat serious and organised gun crime in the area. The leader of Liverpool council and I spent the day with that team recently, and its members were full of praise for the support that they had received from Liberal Democrats on Liverpool city council. Liverpool Liberal Democrats have done pioneering work in introducing alley gates, which have cut domestic burglary rates in Liverpool by an unprecedented amount.

Several hon. Members: rose

Nicholas Clegg: I will not give way as there is very little time in this debate. I am sure that there will be other opportunities to intervene.
	Another recommendation would be to stop legislating when the ink is barely dry on previous legislation that has been rammed on to the statute book. Why are we about to debate another criminal justice Bill when the 50 sections of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 have not even been applied yet?

Julia Goldsworthy: Does my hon. Friend share my concern, and that of my constituents, that somebody convicted of murder has still not had his tariff set under the 2003 Act? Hundreds of people are in the same situation. The implications for their families are a symbol of the Government's incompetence. Legislation is not a proxy for action.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I can think of no better example of the gap between rhetoric and bluster, and what the public actually wantcompetence and effectiveness. The public do not want the endless headline-grabbing legislative gimmicks: they just want Government to work.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman mentioned effective policies that work and he also mentioned gun crime. Given that 58 per cent. of all firearms offences in Scotland involve air weapons, why did his colleagues on the Committee considering the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 refuse to support measures for a purchaser licensing scheme and instead back the weaker vendor licensing scheme?

Nicholas Clegg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, of all hon. Members, would not wish me to short circuit an issue that is clearly a devolved matter

Stewart Hosie: No, it is not. It is reserved. That is why I mentioned it.

Nicholas Clegg: In that case, I shall get back to the hon. Gentleman when I have researched the matter a little more.
	The Government should stop blaming others. The new Home Secretary had barely walked through the doors of the Home Office when he started blaming his predecessors. He then blamed civil servants, the Opposition and the judgeswhen they said things that were not to his likingand, most recently in an interview on Radio 4, he blamed the redecoration problems of some fictional house in the Home Office. Peeling away the wallpaper apparently reveals one problem after another, as if the Home Secretary is Bob the Builder. People want the Home Secretary to get to grips with issues, not continually shuffle blame on to others.
	It is high time that the Prime Minister and the latest Home Secretary showed some contrition and apologised to the British people for promising so much and delivering chaos, and for talking tough and creating systematic incompetence.
	My second suggestion is that the Government should have the courage to do the hard work to change the behaviour of offenders. They should not simply perpetuate the carousel or revolving door of repeat crime. That means thinking radically about what is happening in our overcrowded, over-burdened, dysfunctional prison system. The Government need to admit that it is not possible to build their way out of the prison overcrowding crisis. The 8,000 new prison places that will be built at an expense to the taxpayer of 1.5 billion will not come on stream until 2011-12, by which time every objective observer accepts that prison numbers will have increased far in excess of those extra places.

Anne Snelgrove: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) that prison is a complete and utter waste of time? Can he guarantee that that will be in the next Liberal Democrat manifesto?

Nicholas Clegg: No, I do not agree and it will not be in the next manifesto.
	Clearly, there is a role for prisons, but more difficult questions need to be asked. Why is one prisoner in 10 identified as functionally psychotic? Why not invest the money being put into the prison building programme in expanding the secure and semi-secure mental health facilities that are necessary to keep offenders with serious mental health problems out of harm's way? That money could also be used to rehabilitate and treat them, and so help them avoid falling into the pattern of repeat offending on release.
	The present paid-work schemes in prison are patchy, so why do we not expand them? We advocate that the numbers of prisoners doing paid work should be tripled, and that some of the earnings that they accrue should be passed to a consolidated victim compensation fund.

Paul Rowen: Is my hon. Friend aware that Buckley Hall prison in my constituency had two empty places last week? It has changed from a prison for women to one for men, and the result is that the mental health services there have been stripped out. Moreover, the retraining promised when the men's prison was set up has not been delivered. The prisoners face intolerable circumstances, and their families and the governor are very worried about it.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have spoken to countless prison governors, and they are tearing their hair out because they simply do not know what to do. The tough rhetoric, new legislation and growth in new offences are causing prisons to be overcrowded and making it impossible for governors to do their proper work.
	If the Government simply stuff prisons with more and more offenders while doing nothing about drug addiction and the serious mental health conditions that afflict many prisoners, the result will be increased reoffending and crime. That will be the pattern, and the British public will suffer.

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sally Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Clegg: In a moment. With the numbers of crimes and of prisoners rising at the same time, the result is a revolving door of madness. The Government should have the courage to tackle the problem more vigorously.

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend referred to work in, and associated with, prisons. Is he aware of the really impressive scheme involving the Prince's Trust and Transco? Under the scheme, prisoners worked outside prison on gas pipelines and so forth, and the result was that reoffending rates fell dramatically. That demonstrates precisely what my hon. Friend is sayingthat work projects such as I have described can have a real effect on reoffending rates.

Nicholas Clegg: That is certainly the experience in Reading. Toyota is running a very successful scheme in Aylesbury, where prisoners are trained to be specialised car mechanics. In addition, the Howard League is running an extremely interesting pilot project in a prisonI think that it is in Suffolk, although I stand to be correctedwhere prisoners run a printing press operation at commercial rates. Those are examples of the sort of innovative thinking that has been lacking in the past 10 years. The Government have been so blinded by the need to capture headlines claiming more prison numbers, offences and offenders that they have done nothing to change offenders' behaviour.

Sally Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Clegg: I want to make one more point, and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
	As I said earlier, 92 per cent. of young men who go to prison to serve a sentence of three months or less reoffend within two years of release. We have no rational or moral reason to accept that, because the result is that there is more crime and there are more victims. Could we not think more creatively about ways to hand out community sentences that are more visible and demanding? We suggest that they should be no less than twice the length of time of short custodial sentences. The evidence shows that such sentences provide a better way to cut crime, and that they do not create it.

Sally Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman say which offenders he would not send to prison? Does he support the probation service and probation hostels? If he thinks that people should be held in psychiatric hospitals instead of prisons, will he support the Mental Health Bill? That Bill will make it possible to hold people in such hospitals more easily.

Nicholas Clegg: That is just a diversion. The Mental Health Bill, in effect, treats as criminals people who have committed no offence. It once again blurs the boundary between innocence and guilt, and that has been a trademark of legislation over the past 10 years.
	The Minister will be relieved to hear that my third point is the penultimate one. My kind and benevolent suggestion to the Government for getting themselves out of the mess is that they should get their priorities right. Why are they spending 100,000 of taxpayers' money every day on an unworkable, illiberal and unnecessary scheme to introduce ID cards, while they are slashing the promised number of community support officers who really make a difference by quelling public fear of crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities? Why indulge in the endless merry-go-round of new legislation and debating points in this place when the public want basic leadership and management competence in the Home Office?
	Fourthly, and finally, the Government should be honest. Why do they continue to dupe the public? For instance, they have sustained a false rhetoric about sentencing that has left the public utterly confused and bewildered. Life sentences are nothing of the sort. The average life sentence is 11 years; 53 so-called lifers, given life sentences in 2000, have already been released. That is not just an insult to the English languageit is an insult to the British public to suggest that they should accept the woeful double-speak so beloved of the Government.

Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Clegg: I want to pursue my argument and conclude so that other Members can speak.
	Why did the Government introduce, in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, automatic sentence deductions that make an utter mockery of the sentences handed down in court?

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nicholas Clegg: I am just about to conclude so that others can speak.
	I look forward to the Minister's response. I am sure that it will be characterised by the good grace and absence of personal vitriol for which he is known in the Chamber. I ask him to do one thing: will he at least accept that the populist mix of tough rhetoric and frenzied law-making over the past 10 years has undoubtedly failed and must stop?

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	welcomes the significant and lasting reductions in crime this Government has achieved since 1997 which mean that the chances of being a victim of crime are at historically low levels, 24 per cent. according to the most recent British Crime Survey figures, compared with 35 per cent. in 1997; notes the new and innovative powers to tackle anti-social behaviour which are helping provide respite to communities across the country; welcomes the introduction of biometric identity cards to combat immigration abuse, illegal working, identity fraud and crime as well as strengthening national security and improving access to public services; notes the delivery of an extra 19,000 prison places and an increase in spending on prisons by 35 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years and a further increase over the next five years to deliver a further 8,000 places; welcomes the record numbers of police officers and police community support officers on the streets helping to make communities safer; and congratulates the Government on its commitment to driving down crime further.
	I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) and his nine colleaguesit is nice to see them allfor choosing a debate on this serious subject. It should be discussed seriously, although that did not happen much just now. If we are to have a proper, serious and focused debate on crime, the sort of rant we have just heard is not terribly helpful.

Shona McIsaac: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony McNulty: Of course.

Shona McIsaac: If we are to have a serious debate, has my hon. Friend noted the complete absence of Conservative Back Benchers when we are debating such an important

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker does not like references to who is or is not in the Chamber.

Tony McNulty: I wholly concur with Mr. Speaker and admonish my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). What a disgraceful thing to say! Of course, I welcome the three Conservative Front Benchers, who make up in quality for what is absent in quantity behind them.
	We need to look at the context for the debate. The Government have much to be proud ofcertainly not to apologise forin our record of tackling crime. The 2005-06 British crime survey shows that, compared with 1997, all crime is down by 35 per cent: burglary is down by 55 per cent., all vehicle-related thefts are down by 51 per cent. and violence, measured by the BCS, is down by 34 per cent. In stark terms, those figures mean that there are 5.8 million fewer offences overall than in 1997, as estimated by the BCS, and that the risk of householders experiencing crime is at an historically low level24 per cent., down from 35 per cent. in 1997.
	Whatever the policy differences between us, it is indisputable that the 10,000 antisocial behaviour ordersthey have not been raining down like confetti, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam suggestedthe 13,000 acceptable behaviour contracts and the 1,000 or more dispersal orders have made a significant difference in communities up and down the country, and should not have been treated in a disparaging way that he will probably live to regret.

Julia Goldsworthy: Does the Minister agree with the statistic that gun crime has doubled under the Government, while seizures of illegal firearms have halved? Is his Department undertaking any links with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to try to ensure that the number of seizures increases rather decreases, given the fact that gun crime is rising so rapidly?

Tony McNulty: The hon. Lady will know that, last year, gun crime was down some 14 per cent. However, the point that she makes about the link between HMRC and the importation of guns is a real one. We are addressing that, but more needs to be done, not simply between HMRC and Government, but across Government and with our colleagues in Europe. It is not an accident or anything other than the fact that, with the demise of many of the so-called people's democracies in eastern Europe there has been a flood of firearms on to the European market and there are things that we can and should be doing about that.

Gerald Kaufman: Since my hon. Friend has been talking about antisocial behaviour orders, is he aware that, in addition to the Liberal Democrats' repeatedly voting against every antisocial behaviour Bill that has come before the House of Commons, the Liberal Democrats on Manchester city council said that there was too much antisocial behaviour legislation and the Liberal Democrats in my constituency were against the appointment of neighbourhood wardens but then asked for more neighbourhood wardens?

Tony McNulty: I would like to express surprise at such a stark apparent contradiction in the behaviour of Liberal Democrat councillors, but it happens all too often.  [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we please have just one debate? If people wish to make interventions, they should seek to do so in the usual way.

Tony McNulty: I will give way to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy).

Julia Goldsworthy: On the point about firearms seizures, the port of Falmouth used to seize more firearms than any other part of the UK. The reason why it has not done so for the last three years is that there have not been any patrols in Falmouth. All those resources have been deployed to the large ports to seize things such as tobacco. Will the Minister promise to take action in that respect and accept that that is the reason why seizures are declining?

Tony McNulty: With the best will in the world, the hon. Lady simply cannot say that, because whatever we are doing in ports up and down the country is, by definition, a matter that is not related in the public domain. She made a causal link between a decline in seizures and the intelligence-led work that the authorities do. That simply is not the case. She made a fine point in terms of HMRC and working much more closely in that regard, but then she made a rather futile point.
	The measuresespecially dispersal orders, of which there have been 1,000have made significant differences to our communities up and down the country and should not be disparaged. I do not accept the premise of the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam about young people. The Government do not demonise young people and ASBOs are not raining down like confetti. There have been 10,000 in the best part of three years. There has been an enormous amount of work up and down the countryinvolving individual support orders, acceptable behaviour contracts and a whole array of other interventionsto do everything but serve ASBOs. So his was nice, but profoundly empty, rhetoric.
	Let us look at some of the steps suggested by the Liberal Democrats this weekif I can put it that way, as a reflection of their inconsistencyin relation to their Safer Britain initiative. They mention More police on patrol and say
	Don't waste billions on ID cards.
	The measures have been much vaunted and much costed. There is nothing in addition to what the Government have already done or have planned to do. Some 16,000or 24,000, or whatevercommunity support officers were promised in the manifesto. Then we have the canard that somehow the Government are going to spend all the money that is needed in this area on ID cards. That simply is not the case. We have said time and time again at the Dispatch Box that, as a premise, some 70 per cent. of all the start-up costs for ID cards are there for biometric passports. To refer back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, that is something that the Liberals apparently agree with. So they are okay on the 70 per cent., but they also want that money to be spent on more police, not biometric passports. The rest of the moneys, as has been made very clear, will come through the recovery of costs through the charge for the ID card. There is no massive pot of billions of pounds implied, at least, by the Liberal Democrats for additional police. If there are no ID cards, there will be no charge for ID cards and no recovery of the costs for ID cards, so it is an utter canard. It is a nice little suggestion that bears no scrutiny at all and is simply wrong.
	It is unfairI have to say this, as it ran through the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallamto attack, however benignly, the hundreds and thousands of professionals up and down the country who are working throughout the criminal justice system. It is profoundly wrong to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that [Interruption.] The problem is that we are not now in a school debating chamber, so the Liberal Democrats should rest easy a bit.
	It is profoundly wrong to suggest that there is no education, training or skills tuition inside our prisons. That there should be more might be a proper argument, but it is a fact that there is plenty of it going on and it is wrong to suggest that absolutely nothing is going on.

Helen Jones: In connection with attacking professionals, what would my hon. Friend say to residents living near the Toll Bar road area in Hulme in my constituency who have been persistently plagued with drug problems from nearby flats? The police have gone in and seized large amounts of drugs in some cases, but it is very difficult to prove that people are selling. The Liberal Democrats would end sentences for possession of drugs, so those people would escape without punishment.

Tony McNulty: What I would say to those people, if I may step out and be partisan momentarily, is that whatever else they do, they should never vote for a Liberal Democrat. It will not be possible to use antisocial behaviour orders, because the Liberal Democrats are against them, as they have shown in practical terms in councils up and down the country. Seeking a dispersal order to get rid of those individuals will not happen because the Liberal Democrats are against them, so those people causing trouble in my hon. Friend's constituency are going to remain for ever in that estate.
	The Government have made substantial additional investment in education for offendersfrom 52 million in 2001-02 to 156 million in 2006-07. There is clear evidence that it is working. In the forewordsadly, it is spelled F, O, R, W, A, R, D in my brief, so I will see someone and have words with them laterto its annual report of 2005-06, the chief inspector of the adult learning inspectorate said:
	Perhaps the most heartening success I can report this year has been achieved in prison learning and skills... only 16 per cent.
	still too many
	had inadequate learning and skills provision.
	A commitment to make learning and skills compulsory would come close to trebling those costs in terms of delivery alone and substantial investment would be needed to increase the availability of classrooms, workshops and IT.
	Again, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made a fair pointbut then lost it in all the Focus drivelabout people with mental health problems and about levels of functional literacy in prisons. Some problems need dealing with, but it is absolutely and profoundly wrong to suggest that nothing is being done, though it may well be the case that more should be done.

David Heath: The Minister really cannot get away with the concept that he agrees that something should be done about people in prison with mental health difficulties, when the problem has been pointed out year after year in every report of Her Majesty's inspectorateand nothing gets done about it. The same problem is still there.

Tony McNulty: No, that is not the case at all. The hon. Gentleman should not run away with his own rhetoric. It is not the case that nothing is being done. It may well be the case that more needs to be done and that the Department of Health and the Home Office need to deal with these matters more closely together than they have. I freely accept that that is a legitimate debate, but again it is wrong, particularly in view of what colleagues are doinglong before people even get to prison and subsequently when they are outside prisonon the mental health side of the equation. It is profoundly wrong to say that nothing happens. Again, the hon. Gentleman over-eggs the pudding.
	Significant numbers of prisoners already work in prisonsfor example, in prison workshops, kitchens and horticulture and, increasingly, as peer advisers, gaining qualifications themselves while providing support and guidance to other prisoners. Again, more needs to be done. Again, of course, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), has said, it is far more difficult to make that provision in a prison estate where optimal numbers are already surpassed. We have published the Next Steps action plan, a cross-Government commitment further to develop offenders' skills and get more offenders into sustainable employment through the corporate alliance. Many employers have already seen that this makes business sense, as they can fill their labour gaps and work with prisoners through the prison gate, as it were.
	To get back to the subject of the motion, it is not the case that better compensation for victims is paid for by prison work. That assumption shows a profound lack of understanding of the nature of prison work, and of who pays for it if it is not undertaken for the commercial sector. A number of commercial contracts already exist with the private sector. More often than not, however, prison work is about providing purposeful activity for prisoners and making a modest contribution to some aspects of running prisons. To suggest that we can develop our 160 prisons into some kind of corporate whole, with each one as a little profit centre, so that the profits can be used to compensate victims is shallow and sub-intellectual at best, and profoundly wrong and flawed at worst. Nor did the hon. Gentleman mention in passing that our criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most generous in Europe, paying out nearly 200 million a year to some 35,000 victims.
	Then we come to the Liberal Democrats' call to take back our town centres. Well, it would have been rather nice if they had voted for some of the measures that we have introduced on that issue. They ask for a reduction in alcohol misuse and the harms associated with it, and for more liberal licensing laws so that locals can have a more direct and profound say in the matter [ Interruption .] Well, they do. Yet they voted against the new licensing laws on 23 March 2003. The Licensing Act is now working. About 600 licensing reviews have been completed where concerns have been expressed, and approximately 100 licences have been revoked.
	Dispersal zones are working well in relation to alcohol issues, as are antisocial behaviour orders, but the Liberal Democrats do not like them either. As for alcohol disorder zones, I got fed up trying to find out whether they had voted for them or not. Again, however, those measures are working, or will work when they are implemented.

Sally Keeble: The Liberal Democrats propose that, before someone could have a drinking banning order imposed on them, they would have to have a psychiatric assessment. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is typical of the nonsense that we get from the party across the way?

Tony McNulty: Sadly it is, on matters that are very serious.
	Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman did not dwell on the last little gimmick from the Liberal Democrats. This is the Lib Dem freedom Bill, which was supposed to advance our ability to take these matters seriously. The genesis of this particular ditty came about when the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) resolved that his party needed a tougher form of liberalism. This was before he decided that prison was rubbish and did not work at all.
	Alongside what is in the motion, the Lib Dem freedom Bill makes profoundly depressing reading. It would run a coach and horses through much of what we are trying to do, misguidedly all in the name of freedom and liberalism. It would reverse changes in the law on the right to silence, which have made it easier to convict the guilty, not in every case but in specific cases in which it would be of use to the authorities to make it more difficult to acquit those who are clearly guilty in specific circumstances. That is not even our measure, actually. It goes back to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to give due credit to the Conservatives, three of whom are in the Chamber this afternoon

Edward Garnier: Will the Minister please name us so that our constituents will know that we are here?

Tony McNulty: I will if I have time during our deliberations.
	Our measure refers specifically to a tight set of circumstances in which the right to silence can and should be challenged. The Liberal Democrats would get rid of it. That would make it much more difficult not only to convict those who are clearly guilty, but in some circumstances, to acquit the innocent. That is a totally befuddled and bemusing approach. It might look nice in a little five-point freedom Bill, but it is profoundly dangerous.
	An equally dangerous proposal in this little ditty, the Lib Dem freedom Bill, is their opposing the retention of DNA records, which are helping to crack old crimes and convict dangerous offenders. Here, they are slipping into their rhetoric and entering profoundly dangerous territory. A fellow called Anthony de Boise would be very grateful if the Liberal Democrats had had their way and there were no DNA database. I will not go into all the details, but he was in dispute with his sister over the estate after one of their parents had died. He was taken in for theft and DNA-fingerprinted. The DNA was put on the database. The charges were dropped, but he was subsequently the subject of a further investigation, and because that DNA sample was on the database, the unloved Anthony De Boise is now doing 13 years for six counts of indecent assault on girls aged between 13 and 16, committed in Surrey between 1989 and 1996. That is because our legislation allowed us to retain that database.

David Heath: rose

Tony McNulty: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can respond to that point.

David Heath: I would like to know why the Minister is not honest about the criminal justice system's requirements. The database should either genuinely encompass everybody, or be restricted to those convicted of a criminal offence, and there are entirely logical arguments for either position. However, there is no basis in logic for a DNA database not only of those who have been convicted of a criminal offence, but of those who have been arrested but not charged, and those who have come before the courts and been found not guilty. If the police have followed proper procedures, a few people who work in No. 10 should now be on the DNA database; is the Minister?

Tony McNulty: I am not, but I would have absolutely no difficulty with being on the database. I tell the hon. Gentleman sincerely that he should consider the victims of Anthony De Boise, the victims of another individual who is now doing six years for sexual assault, to whom the same thing applieshis DNA was picked up in one environment, but the charges were dropped, and he was subsequently charged for other offencesand the victims of Shaun Greenway, who is serving a life sentence for three rapes committed between 2002 and 2005. The Prime Minister has said clearly, in terms, that he is quite comfortable with the notion of everybody being on the database.  [Interruption.] I will ignore the chuntering, if I may.
	We are told that, under the Liberal Democrat freedom Bill, the use of hearsay evidence in court would be scrapped. It should not be used all the time, in all circumstances; however, in particular circumstances, and for particular crimes, when the proper safeguards are in place, it can make the difference between convicting someone who is guilty, after due process, and not convicting them. The proposal would sound lovely in a little Liberal Democrat freedom Bill, but it would be profoundly destructive to what we are trying to do for our communities under the criminal justice system.

Adrian Bailey: What assessment has been made of the number of crimes that would have been committed, and the number of people who would have been involved, had the Liberal policy on DNA retention been implemented?

Tony McNulty: I can tell my hon. Friend that in 2005-06 there were, at the very least, some 45,000 DNA matches for crimes, including 422 homicides, 645 rapes, 256 other sex offences, nearly 2,000 other violent crimes and more than 9,000 domestic burglary offences, but the DNA database offends the sensibilities of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), so he thinks that we should scrap it. That is abject nonsense. The Liberal Democrats voted against the legislation when it came before the House, but what did we expect?
	There must be, for public policy sake if nothing else, a serious and substantial debate about criminal policy, conducted responsibly by both the Government and Opposition parties, but sadly this is not it. We need a debate about who should be in prison, and who should not. There must be a debate about how we deal with many low-level, but still deeply destructive, crimes for our communities, through the use of fixed penalty notices, summary justice, ASBOs, and dispersal orders, which do work. We need to ensure that ever more serious, persistent and violent offenders are put where they belong, and we are doing so.
	We do not need lectures from a party that tells us that dispersal orders offend their sensibilities. The Liberal Democrats could not care less what dispersal orders do to alleviate the difficulties for our communities; they are against them, so that is the end of it. They do not like fixed penalty notices, but they do not explain why to our communities. They, with their stratospherically pseudo-intellectual sensibilities, do not like fixed penalty notices, so they do not matter, whatever they do for our communities. Liberal Democrats do not like the notion of giving the police powers to close crack houses, although that relates to the very point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made about how to allocate houses on estates. We offer the power to close crack houses, and the Liberal Democrats vote against it. We offer [Interruption.] I am afraid they did vote against police powers to close crack houses. What else would we expect, given that on one local authority a Liberal Democrat councillor wants the police to be charged 400 every time they knock down a door in a drug raid? She thinks it is appalling that the local council should have to pay to refit the door if, for operational reasons, the police had to knock it down. Even her local colleagues called her stupid and rushed to distance themselves from her suggestion.
	The Liberal Democrats would end all sentences for drug possession, as we heard. Time after time, we are told that all of a sudden they are tough on crime. The debate should not be about tough  v. soft. It should be about practicalities, substance, making a difference in the criminal justice system both for those who offend and those who are offended against, and getting that balance right across the piece. Being very bad at being tough, as evidenced by such a weak and flaccid record, is not good enough.
	The debate should have been a chance for the Liberal Democrats to set out a shining, substantial policy for the way forward. I have no idea what their policy is, save for two features. First, their previous shadow Home Secretary saidI think this gets closer to the reality:
	Liberal Democrats aim to maximise freedom and this applies to the perpetrator and victim alike.
	No difference, no distinction is made. On another occasion, one of their much vaunted ex-leaders said that it was important to him that Ian Huntley, among others, should be able to vote and take part in our democratic process.
	Liberal Democrats are all over the place, as the motion shows, in their proposals for the way forward for themselves, let alone for the country and for tackling crime. Let us have the substantive debate. Let us discuss where the Government need to do more and where the emphasis should be in penal policy. That discussion is necessary, but we cannot have it wrapped around a silly little motion proposed in a rather sub-intellectual way by the next leader of the party, who will remain where he is, not on the official Opposition Front Bench and certainly not on the Government Front Bench.

Nick Herbert: I agree with much that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) said. I welcome his conversion to the principle of honesty in sentencing. We have said that judges should specify a minimum and a maximum number of years for an offender to serve in prison, with a minimum sentence being served in full. We have said that the early release scheme should be scrapped. We made those pledges at the last election.
	It would be churlish of me not to welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated recognition that we were right, but we have some important differences with the Liberal Democrats. They support community sentences instead of prison for many crimes, but I cannot agree that prison sentences are not appropriate for serial shoplifters, vandals or fine defaulters. Custodial sentences are sometimes the only option for courts when offenders are serially abusing the criminal justice system. Some call these offenders petty, but their actions can make people's lives a misery and blight communities.
	The failure or improper use of many non-custodial penalties has gravely undermined the public's confidence in ill thought-through alternatives to prison. Over 4,000 prisoners released early under the home detention curfew scheme have reoffended, committing more than 7,000 crimes. More than 1,000 of those were violent offences, including a murder, woundings and assaults. The hon. Gentleman says that there should be no soft options. I agree, so I have been reading the Liberal Democrats' We Can Cut Crime website with great interest. I am surprised that so much Liberal Democrat policy has been left outthe generous pledge to give prisoners the right to vote, their plan to downgrade the classification of ecstasy, and their long-standing commitment to the legalisation of prostitution. The party's new campaign appears to be the latest incarnation of what was briefly called tough liberalism, a notion best epitomised by the proposal to send teenage joyriders to race cars or learn car maintenance. In the words of the party's former home affairs spokesman:
	maybe, just maybe they will get out of committing crime.
	Alternatively, maybe they will learn to fix the cars that they steal and drive them faster.
	It would be a shame if the full complement of Liberal Democrat policies were not promoted more effectively. We cannot rely on wecancutcrime.com, so I have done some research, and I can tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that woollyliberals.com is still availablewoollyliberals.eu is also available, if he prefers it.
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee:
	I think that we have got to be careful as law makers that we are not literally living on a different planet from the public.
	It is safe to say that the Prime Minister is not literally living on a different planet from the rest of us, even if many in his own party would like that to be the case. When it comes to the Government's claims on tackling crime, however, the Government appear to be living in a parallel universe. The Government amendment
	welcomes the significant and lasting reduction in crime.
	Reduction? Only on a measure that excludes crimes against under-16s and commercial property, drug dealing and murder. If one adds in the crimes that have been left out, there are not 10 million crimes a yearthe figure is more like 30 million.
	In November, a leaked document from the Prime Minister's own strategy unit admitted that 80 per cent. of the claimed decrease in crime was due to economic factors. As the centre for crime and justice studies at King's college London has pointed out, the Government easily achieved their crime targets, because those targets were
	set on the basis of existing trends continuing regardless of government action.
	The fact is that almost 500,000 more crimes were committed last year than in the year in which the Government entered office. Far from the lasting reduction claimed in the amendment, the strategy unit document tells us that the Home Office prediction is that crime will begin to risein fact, crime rose in last week's figures. Not surprisingly, that page in the strategy unit's document did not appear in the final versionanother dodgy dossier, and another inconvenient truth hidden from the public.
	Frankly, no one believes the Government's claims on crime any more, because, as the Statistics Commission has said, the Government routinely spin the figures. The Government claim that the chances of being a victim of crime are at historically low levels, but people in this country have a higher chance of being a victim than people in any of our peer group countries, bar one. Home Office spending has risen by 6.2 billion a year under this Government, an increase of nearly 290 per household. We now spend more on law and order as a proportion of GDP2.5 per cent.than any other OECD country. Yet only this week, the European crime and safety survey showed that the UK has the highest rate of burglary and assault in the European Union. We have the highest spending and the worst performance. Have the Government not stopped for one second to ask themselves why that is the case?
	The second claim from planet Marsham street is that new and innovative powers to tackle antisocial behaviour are working. How exactly are they working, when more than half of ASBOs are breached? The Youth Justice Board has said that young people treat ASBOs as a badge of honour. The Government say that ASBOs are working. It is not hard to decide who to believe. How do the Government know that ASBOs are working, when the National Audit Office has said that there has been no formal assessment of the programme? There is no serious programme to deal with antisocial behaviour; all we get is a series of gimmicks. We have had Respect handbooks and Respect rocks parties on beaches, and we have had together plans and action plans, yet antisocial behaviour still plagues our communitiesin particular, it affects the poorest communities in the country.
	What action has there been? There has been action to keep offenders out of court. Thousands of offenders, including sex offenders, are now receiving cautions for their crimes. Serial shoplifters are being rewarded with penalty notices, which can be less than the value of the stolen goods. Those actions all count as offences brought to justice, but half the fines are not paid, so the offences are not brought to justice at all. The only effect has been to hit a Government target.
	The Government's amendment claims that the introduction of identity cards will combat immigration abuse and illegal working. How will ID cards prevent illegal immigration when foreign visitors, of whom there were 28 million last year, will not be required to have one unless they plan to stay in the UK for more than three months? I notice that in the midst of the constantly shifting justifications for ID cards, the amendment does not claim that they will prevent terrorism. As the previous Home Secretary admitted, they did not prevent the bombings in Madrid and would not have prevented the 7/7 bombings either. If the Government were serious about dealing with immigration, they would reintroduce proper border controls, but the UK Borders Bill no more does that than it deals with the 10,000 foreign nationals in our prisons, more than half of whom still will not face automatic deportation under its measures.
	The Government congratulate themselves on the provision of extra prison places, but there is nothing to congratulate them on as regards prisons. As Professor Rod Morgan, the former chairman of the Youth Justice Board who resigned, warned last week, we are standing on the brink of a prisons crisis. Prisons are full. Unsuitable police cells are being used to house inmates. Unsuitable offenders have been transferred to open jails, and prisoners, including murderers, have been walking out of the doors at a rate of two a week from Ford prison in my constituency. Drugs are rife in prisonsinstitutions that are meant to be secure. Reconviction rates are rising. Nearly 80 per cent. of young male prisoners reoffend within two years. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam that we have to do more to ensure that prisons work effectively and to provide alternative secure places for prisoners with serious drugs problems. Seventy per cent. of adult prisoners have a reading and numeracy age of under 11. The amount of purposeful activity in prisons is appalling, be it work, education or training. We cannot possibly hope to rehabilitate prisoners in the current crowded conditions.
	The Government proclaim that record numbers of police officers and police community support officers are on the streets helping to make communities safer. Where are all those officers? They are spending less than a fifth of their time on the beat. They are in stations filling in multiple forms to process arrests. They are in court spending hours waiting for cases that are cancelled when witnesses do not turn up. Some 8,000 of them are on restricted dutieson full pay but doing as little as an hour's work a day, at a cost of 243 million a year. Police stations have been closed. The Government have reneged on their manifesto promise to deliver 24,000 PCSOs by next year. They have shelved their manifesto promise to introduce the national non-emergency 101 number. The police national database that was promised in the wake of the Soham murders has been delayed by three years, and costs have more than doubled. Perhaps by Home Office standards that counts as a reasonable performance.
	In November, the Government said that they were going to publish a vision for policing. Like the 101 number and the promised PCSOs, the vision has been shelved. After the collapse of the mergers, the Government have nothing to say about policing. Ministers are giving no direction at all but merely call lamely for a debate. The Government's sole remaining vision of policing is the prospect of Scotland Yard officers marching up Downing street. Where are the big ideas? What happened to the tough action on the causes of crime? Like the Minister's advice to members of the public who see a mugging, all the Government can do is put up their hands.
	But let us be fair to the Home Secretary. He has one big ideato split his Department in two. Of course we agree that there is a major security challenge facing the country, and that the Home Office ministerial team needs strengthening to confront that challengefrankly, it would be hard to disagree with that. Splitting the Home Office would be disruptive and would dislocate the criminal justice system by separating the police from the penal system at a time when justice so clearly needs to be joined up. However, it would not solve the real problem, which has been successive Home Secretaries under this Government and the strategic errors that they have made. Ministers took the decision to relax immigration controls, and the decision was wrong. Ministers were warned four years ago that the minimum level of the prison population would be higher than it is now, but they ignored the advice, took the decision, and the decision was wrong. Officials are not to blame, and it is not the Department that is unfit for purpose, but Ministers. Why should splitting a Department result in Ministers who can make better decisions? What we need is a Home Secretary who prefers responsible, long-term decisions to grabbing the next headline, but we have not had that for 10 years. Instead, the criminal justice system has been deluged with legislation. Sixty-two Home Office Bills have been introduced since 1997six in this Session alone. Twenty-three measures have subsequently been wholly or partly repealed. Out of 3,000 new offences, 430 have been created by the Home Office.
	There has been equally frenetic spinning. The Government Communication Network is currently advertising a vacancy for a news editor for the Home Office website. The job specification is candid. It states:
	This is a challenging role... The successful candidate will be joining a professional... team
	that will be news to the Home Secretary
	and taking the lead in writing news stories... You will need to be someone who is highly adaptable, excels when working under pressure and can juggle a varied and demanding workload with good cheer.
	I wish the news editor well on planet Marsham street. Back in the real world, people have had their fill of spin.
	After 10 years and billions of pounds of taxpayers' money, there is no one else for the Government to blame. The failure to tackle crime is their record. Failures in the Home Office are their responsibility. The 27,500 files on criminals that sat for years on a Home Office desk are their responsibility. The failure to jail sex offenders because the prisons are full is their fault. They promised the public tough action, they failed to deliver and they will be held to account.

Margaret Moran: I listened with great interest and some amusement to the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg). I waited for answers to some of the knotty problems that the Government are tackling. Alas, I heard none. I filleted two main themes from the hon. Gentleman's speech: we should all be honest about crime and antisocial behaviour and we should focus on prevention. In so far as the Liberals can be honest, we should examine the realitynot the windy rhetoricof their hare-brained proposals for people's lives, for example, in my constituency. From the perspective of my community, the Liberals are much more interested in the rights of the perpetrators than those of victims. My constituents pay the price for that woolly Liberalism.

Jeremy Browne: You're the Government.

Margaret Moran: The hon. Gentleman smirks and laughs but my constituents pay heavily for Liberal-Tory controlled Luton council, which has voted against using any antisocial behaviour measures. Liberals and Tories oppose those measures not only in this place but in practice in Luton.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that dispersal orders constitute one of the most popular measures? On estates in my constituency, they have been used to disperse the plague of youths that hang around street corners. Yet the Liberal Democrats voted against them when they came before the House.

Margaret Moran: I agree. The Liberals oppose not only dispersal orders but fixed penalty notices for drunken louts. They claim to deliver greater public safety but they voted against police powers to break up unruly gangs of teenagers and so on.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), one of only a handful of Liberal Democrats present, chunters, but he should come and talk to people in Farley and Bury park in my constituency who are still waiting for gating schemes. The Liberals claim that they are leading the way on that issue nationally. Luton has areas with major problems of crime and drug addiction, yet the Liberals will not enforce gating schemes in places such as Farley.
	In areas such as Brook street, there are major problems of prostitution, drug dealing and drug taking, and action is not effective, not because the police do not want to act but because the Liberal council tells them that it does not want to get involved in that partnership approach. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam must explain to constituents in areas such as Brook street why the Liberals oppose measures to tackle crack houses and drug possession and why they believe in liberalising prostitution. All those problems plague my constituents in that area and the surrounding area of High Towne.

Diana Johnson: My hon. Friend's experience in Luton is being shared by the people of Hull whose council is now Liberal-controlled. The party concerned voted against CCTV cameras to provide protection and security for local people, and will not fill vacancies in the CCTV monitoring room to make sure that perpetrators are brought to book.

Margaret Moran: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which illustrates that the Liberals talk tough here but do not vote tough. Their voting record shows that they have been against any of the tough measures introduced by our Government, and that they are a danger to our communities.
	The Government have invested nearly 3 million to improve St. George's square and regenerate the centre of Luton. What has the Liberal council done? It has refused to introduce dispersal orders and alcohol-free zones. The problems that have plagued the centre of town will therefore reappear, and people will again not want to work in and visit Luton. Despite the Respect Task Force having been called in twice to deal with antisocial behaviour, that is the approach of Liberals on the council and of the Liberals' national policies. The police tell me that they are doing their best, but that the council has refused to co-operate with them and introduce dispersal orders and alcohol-free zones. How can the police deal with such issues and respond to community needs when the practice of Liberal councils is to do exactly the opposite?
	The council has not only wasted money from the Government for regeneration but in relation to identity cards. I undertook a major consultation of my constituents, 96 per cent. of whom are desperate to have ID cards. One in seven of the UK population wants ID cards, because they are a price worth paying for greater security and to get rid of fear of crime. Again, Liberal Members, and Liberals on Luton council, have voted against ID cards. The majority of people in Luton want the measure introduced, however, and we will deliver it.
	Across the UK, crime has decreased by 35 per cent. since 1997, with domestic burglary down by 55 per cent. and 250,000 more offences being brought to the courts than five years ago. I especially commend the Government on introducing tougher sentences for murder and sexual and violent offences. In some areas, however, there are still problems. As I have illustrated, many of those problems are brought on by Liberal policies.
	My area is covered by Bedfordshire police authority, which often tells me that it suffers from lack of resources. I must disabuse it of that notion. It complains that it did not get sufficient resourcing for the force amalgamation proposals, but it got what it asked for in full23,500. It says that the Government are cutting its resources; in fact, its budget in Luton has increased by 3.6 per cent., which is above the rate of inflation. Next year, it will receive 66.4 million in general grants, which is an increase of 3.7 per cent, and an estimated 11 million on top of that from a range of other Government funding streams, for instance, to help roll out neighbourhood policing across the area. It will also receive substantial investment in local policing. From 2007, the control on officer numbers that accompanied the large specific grantthe crime fighting fundis being lifted, for which the authority asked.
	However, the distribution of police resources within Bedfordshire police authority is a major issue, on which I wish that our Liberal-Tory council would take action instead of whingeing.
	Luton does not receive a proportionate share of police resources. Although it is pushed up the M1, it is essentially a London borough with the multiplicity of problems experienced by London boroughs, including the problems of crime.
	Luton has higher crime levels than any other part of Bedfordshire. I have figures of 2 per cent. for sexual offences compared with 0.9 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole; 3 per cent. for robbery offences compared with 1.4 per cent. nationally; and 24 per cent. for violence against the person compared with 16.5 per cent. nationally. Within Bedfordshire, Luton is experiencing most of those problems. That is all the more reason why there should be co-operation between the police and the council. However, owing to decisions made by Bedfordshire police authority, Luton is disproportionately underfunded. If it received the same funds as a borough with a comparable police family, we would have at least 32 extra officers on the beat to tackle some of those serious issues.
	I have called on Luton council to join me in a campaign to ensure that Luton receives its fair share of the additional funding for Bedfordshire police authority. I wish it would get its finger out, not only to deal with the issues that we have been discussing but to help me fight that campaign for a fair share for Luton. I hope that the Minister will have words with members of the police authority, and will urge them to ensure that Luton's crime problems are tackled more effectively with better resources.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam has had his wings substantially clipped. The windy rhetoric that we heard bears no relation to the reality of what is happening in people's lives.

David Heath: I am concerned by what the hon. Lady said about her police authority. I have no torch to bear for Bedfordshire police authority, but it is not the police authority that determines the operational decisions of the chief constable. It is for the chief constable to decide who is deployed in her town.

Margaret Moran: The police authority, in conjunction with the chief constable, makes decisions on the allocation of resources between areas covered by the authority. I am sure the Minister will clarify the position, but that is what I have been told by both the chief constable and the Minister concerned.
	I want to mention some serious national issues which, sadly, were not raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. I hope that the Minister will think about ways in which we can tackle crime even better than we are already. The hon. Gentleman mentioned prison capacity. There should be further investigation of the number of women in our prisons. The Fawcett Society has done sterling research on those who are in prisons, and has found that a disproportionate number of women are there as a result of relatively minor offences. Many have been victims themselves, particularly of domestic violence, and increasingly they are becoming victims of the criminal justice system as well. More and more women are in prison unnecessarily, and we must try to break that cycle.
	The second issue that I want to raise is e-crime. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats have no policy on it, as it will be one of the biggest issues affecting the criminal justice system and the police system. I have just returned from Washington, where I had meetings with the FBI and others to discuss the issue. I am sorry to say that I have received no satisfactory answers to my probing questions about the extent of e-crime in the United Kingdom. The FBI and other United States authorities have a much clearer picture of what is going on: according to them, e-crime is now taking place on a massive scale, and will be the biggest issue affecting us in the future.  [Interruption.]

Julia Goldsworthy: On that point, I have recently been contacted by a constituent whose credit card details, e-mail address and password were published on the internet, and he finds that he cannot report that as a crime unless he has suffered some financial loss. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government urgently need to address that issue?

Margaret Moran: That is one of a number of issues that we need to ensure we are getting on top of; I am just sorry that the Liberal Democrats appear to have no policies to address any such issues.  [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind Members sitting on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that only one debate is taking place in the Chamber.

Margaret Moran: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Liberal Democrat Members obviously do not want to learn any lessons about what they should address if they want their party to be taken even half way seriously as a party of opposition, which is what it will continually be.

Jeremy Browne: I seek clarification on earlier comments that the hon. Lady made. Did she say that there are people in prison who she believes should be released earlier than Government Front Benchers wish?

Margaret Moran: The hon. Gentleman is not doing himself any great service. I merely made the point that we need to look into the fact that there are many women who are in prison for relatively minor offences and who have been victims of violence. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will support measures to tackle domestic violence and repeat victimisation, as he has so far failed to support most of the measures to tackle crime and support our victims that have passed through the House.
	The Met police have recently concluded a report, and I am pleased to say that Detective Chief Inspector Charlie McMurdie, who visited Washington with us, was able to brief us on the fact that there is concern that local specialist e-crime units throughout the country can no longer cope with e-crime. Businesses have complained that the merger last year of the national hi-tech crime unit into the Serious Organised Crime Agency has left a serious gap in policing at a time when computer crime is reaching epidemic proportions.
	Demand for computer forensic services, which cost the Met 4.3 million last year, is forecast to increase by 40 per cent. in 2007. There is a great need to focus on crime prevention and intelligence gathering, and there is a particular need for greater police resources to tackle organised criminal networks and individuals who represent a high threat in the online world. I am pleased that the report concludes that the police need to work more closely with businesses to prevent attacks. That is in all our interests, as confidence in the commercial worldindeed, in our whole economyrests on a secure online world. We need to recognise that e-crime is now a mainstream issue.
	I concur with the Met report's suggestion that we should have a central unit. We cannot be Keystone Cops chasing after developments in the online world. The rate of advance in technology is very fast and the speed with which organised criminals online are able to develop new software and technologies outstrips our police's ability ever to get to grips with that. We will never have sufficient police, forensic and technology-based specialisms and skills to keep up with the rapid rate of change in technology.
	We should take up a suggestion of EURIM, the IT parliamentary and industry group that I chair, and of the Met report, although we should go further than it recommends. We should slap a sheriff's badge on many people in the IT industry, where there are legions of security and technology experts, and give them greater powers to tackle some of these issues, because our police and resources will never keep up with the rate of change. We need to place greater emphasis across Departmentsnot only in the Home Officeon finding ways to tackle this problem. Confidence in our economy could rest on it.
	I commend the Government for the work that has already been done on online child abuse, and the Minister in particular for his dedication to the issue and his wisdom in adopting the measures in two ten-minute Bills that I proposed: the checking of moderators by the Criminal Records Bureau, and a requirement that internet service providers introduce filters to protect us alland particularly the children abusedfrom access to online child abuse sites.
	When we were in Washington, we made very valuable contacts with the FBI and NCMECthe National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which does wonderful work in this area. They asked me to pass on their congratulations to our Government on taking a lead on the issue by working with the Internet Watch Foundation and setting up the Home Office taskforce. That is a tribute to partnership working, and such an approach does indeed work. The Government's partnership arrangements with industry and with the charity and voluntary sector have been spectacularly effective in closing down child abuse sites. A few years ago, some 15 per cent. of such sites were hosted in the UK; now the figure is only 0.1 per cent. That has been achieved without legislation, and through partnership working. As the experts in the United States suggested, this model could be used around the world. We must take the opportunity to work with other countries to ensure that they understand how successful that model has been.
	The problem is all too prevalent. In only the past week, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centrea Government initiative that I commend most highlyidentified three men who were using an online chat-room and planning to abduct and rape a young girl. That was excellent policing by CEOP, but it does need more resources. The FBI has thousands of investigators looking at sites; in effect, we have only one. We need to recognise that this is only the beginning for CEOP; it needs more resources. People are using the YouTubes of this world to associate online in order to plan real abuses of young women and children. Sadly, what happens in the online world translates to the real world. Through good detective work, an online paedophile in St. Albans was discovered to be raping and abusing a baby. He was tracked down through the good technical online detective work that organisations such as CEOP carry out.
	There is a range of online issues that we need to address, not just grooming, chat-room paedophiles and the exchange of images. Of course, the technology is moving fast, and such images are transferred around the world through personal digital assistants. The cost to organised child abusers of entering that world has gone down. Anybody can now have a PDA, whereas the production of such images used to require a room and a camera or a video-recording facility, and much more equipment besides. The problem is that we are having difficulty keeping up with the technology. The sad fact is that some internet service providers, including some internationally known ones, are not doing enough to safeguard against the use of chat-rooms by online child abusers and paedophiles to plan their terrible acts against children.
	We should remark on the only policy of the Liberal Democrats.  [Interruption.] They are not interested, apparently, as they are talking to each other. They say that criminals should have the same freedoms as their victims. That is in the Liberal Democrats' Orange Book, and suggests that paedophiles should have exactly the same liberties as any other member of the community. Another good one from a Liberal Democrat campaign booklet states:
	A liberal vision would deliver greater public safety.
	However, the campaign booklet also suggests that party workers should give sweets to children to lure them into delivering Lib Dem leaflets. That is hardly appropriate or sensible behaviour in the context of the difficult issues that we are discussing.
	We need to recognise that online child abusers are often techies and evidence suggests that they are developing new forms of encryption and software. They are using multiple servers to redirect images instantly and they are splitting data. We have to be ahead of online child abusers and to that end, I have a few recommendations to make.
	We need to work globally and the internet governance forum is an opportunity to discuss the issues with other countries where servers are being hosted, such as Ukraine and other former Soviet Union countries. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will support that. We need to devise common standards for data retention by ISPs so that we can detect abuses more easily, and we need to consider the forfeiture rules used by the FBI where online organised child abuse is being developed.
	I suggest that in the light of the Home Office review of child sex offenders we need to drop silly ideas such as Megan's lawI am sure that we could have a debate about thatand we need to look at the research that has been conducted, by the Pugh institute in the US, for example, which shows that a relatively small number of children and young people are subjected to abuse online. The same young people indulge in risky behaviour online as do so in the real world. Perhaps we need to examine those studies to see how we may better focus the limited resources that we have to ensure that we tackle that problem and safeguard those few young people who are particularly at risk.
	We also need to consider greater resourcing for organisations such as CEOP and we need to discuss sentencing. The FBI is especially concerned that sentencing in the US far surpasses anything imposed by UK courts. It is keen to prosecute UK child abuse offenders because possession of such images in the US means a sentence of five years in prison, and production of the images means 25 years in prison. Let us compare and contrast that with the sentences of a few months passed down by some of our judges for such offences. Indeed, in a recent case the judge suggested that the paedophile buy his young victim a bike. There are some serious issues arising from sentencing that we need to address, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider those.
	Unfortunately, this debate has been initiated by the Liberal Democrats [ Interruption. ] They clearly do not take these issues very seriously. They made no mention of e-crime or of child abuse online, which are big and serious issues, preferring instead to assault the Government's record. We know that our record needs further improvement, but compared with what the people in my constituency would experience ifGod forfendwe ever had Liberal Democrats in power, we are doing so much better. I know that people in my constituency know that the fairy-tale policies of the Liberal Democrats would do them no good whatever, and I am astonished that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam had the audacity to initiate this debate.

Jeremy Browne: I am pleased to be called to sum up a debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), who opened it, called very opportune. We are approaching a decade of this Labour Government, and the Blair era will soon be written about in the history books. There will be plenty of material to considerthe absence of real leadership and of meaningful reform in welfare and health care, and the huge scar running through the Government that is the war in Iraq.
	However, the Prime Minister is especially associated with one phrase. It made him famous as a politician, even though it was apparently authored by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The phrase is
	Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
	Laudable though the thought is, the phrase neatly sums up where the Prime Minister, and the Government as a whole, have gone wrong. He has put his faith in a slogan emphasising toughness, when what was needed was action with an emphasis on effectiveness. The Government's attachment to spin, media management and presentation at the expense of serious and effective measures to reduce crimeand especially serious categories such as gun crimehas been a lamentable feature of their time in office.
	An indication of the Prime Minister's style was apparent when an e-mail memorandum was published in 2000. It was from TB, and was dated 29 April. It summed up his approach to the way in which the Government were to go about the serious problem of rising crime in this country. The Prime Minister said:
	On crime, we need to highlight the tough measures ... we are lacking a tough public message ... We should think now of an initiative, eg locking up street muggers. Something tough, with immediate bite which sends a message through the system.
	Maybe, the driving licence penalty for young offenders. But this should be done soon and I, personally, should be associated with it.
	That e-mail sums up the Prime Minister's entire approach to crimegimmicky, ill thought out, and associated with him. The preoccupation was with getting in tomorrow's newspapers, and not with addressing the serious problems afflicting the country.
	A more recent example appeared in the  Evening Standard of 17 January. A senior official who had worked directly with the Prime Minister said:
	The trouble with Tony is that he thinks that just because he says he wants something to happen it is going to happen.
	One could not sum up better the sentiments of those Labour Back Benchers who have contributed to the debate. Because the Prime Minister thinks that something is a good idea, they think that it is happening and making a measurable difference to our communities.

Jane Kennedy: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's summation, and I am sorry that I missed about half an hour of the debate. I referred to Liverpool during the opening speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg). The Liberal Democrat council there has funded fewer than five community support officers: all the rest of those officers have been funded by the Home Office, and the same is true of alley gating. Such measures make a material difference to local neighbourhoods, but the Liberal Democrats in power in Liverpool are mightily reluctant to put their money where their mouth is and fund similar initiatives.

Jeremy Browne: The right hon. Lady seemed to suggest earlier that Liverpool was run better by the Labour party, but I remember when the then leader of the party commented on the obscene spectacle of a Labour council scurrying around handing out redundancy notices to its own workers. I therefore caution her against holding up Labour in municipal government in Liverpool as a model.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) referred to police community support officers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that the national target for PCSOs has just been reduced from 24,000 to 16,000? In Gloucestershire alone, that will lead to a loss of 74 PCSOs whom we expected and needed.

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That target was a cast-iron pledgea real, genuine, black-and-white, in-ink promise in the Labour manifestobut it was broken almost as soon as the votes were counted in Liverpool and other constituencies across the country.
	The Government's approach is to put the emphasis on spin, appearance and media headline initiatives rather than on practical measures to deal with crime. Since 1997, a total of 39 Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries have passed through the revolving door of the Home Office. Labour has created more than 3,000 new criminal offences, passed 115,000 pages of legislation and introduced more than 50 Bills, including 24 criminal justice measures. In the 60 years between 1925 and 1985, Governments managed to get by with only six Criminal Justice Actsan average of one every decade. The Labour Government get through them at the rate of more than two a year, yet they do not seem to be having the desired effect.
	I shall list some of the Bills proposed in this Session, to give a sense of the legislative frenzy that the Government mistake for effective action on crime: the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill, the Legal Services Bill, a criminal justice Bill, an asylum and immigration Bill, the Offender Management Bill, a counter-terrorism Bill, the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill and the Serious Crime Bill. No wonder Ministers have no time to run their Department effectively and deal with the public's priorities and concerns about crime. They are too busy trying to position themselves for the next day's newspapers and vis--vis the Opposition parties to get to grips with some of the serious problems that afflict our communities.

Kevan Jones: May I put the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) asked the hon. Gentleman? When Liberal Democrats have local powersas they do in Liverpoolto make communities safer by appointing CSOs, why have they not done so?

Jeremy Browne: All kinds of measures have been taken by local councils all over the country. I may be as disingenuous as the hon. Gentleman was trying to be when I suggest that the correlation between crime rates and areas represented by Labour Members may be unflattering but that does not mean that every person in his party is directly responsible for the situation.
	The outcome is bleak indeed. Violent crime, which concerns people most, has doubled since 1998. Our prisons are overflowing. Only this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam pointed out that violent offences in prisons have increased by 600 per cent., including attacks on brave prison officers. Sixty per cent. of prisoners reoffend within two years. The figure rises for young men on short sentences, 92 per cent. of whom reoffend within two years of release. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has just noted, the Government have even broken their promises about the numbers of police community support officers.
	Earlier in the debate, we heard a list of wholly misleading and unrepresentative claims about the Liberal Democrats. It is not for me to suggest that anybody in the House was deliberately being misleading, but I shall briefly go through the claims. It was said by a Labour Back Bencher that my party voted against ASBOs. Not true. I refer Members to a Library note of 18 January 2007, which states that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
	had cross party support, and there was no division on second reading or third reading in the Commons, and no divisions on ASBOs in the Commons committee stages...while the Liberal Democrats moved amendments on such points, their spokesmen made it clear that they did not oppose the principle of ASBOs.
	Many Members on the Labour Benches owe the House an apology, which they may want to make through the proper channels.
	It was said that my party favours votes for prisoners, but that was not in our manifesto and the leader of my party has made it explicit that he does not favour themjust as, I believe, the Minister is on the point of introducing them. It was said in interventions during the debate that my party voted against measures to close crack houses. Let me make it clear that we have always supported proposals to make it possible for crack houses to be closed, but, in this case, they were contained in a bigger Bill with a whole series of other measures. We voted against the Bill because there were other features of it that we objected to. Most particularly, we objected to the total inability of Labour Members to appreciate that freedom of association is an important right to preserve in an open, free and liberal country. Perhaps even worse than all those untruths was the claim that my party is against community support officers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are the party that has championed community level activities to reduce crime. It is the big, top-down schemes that have been brought forward by the Government that have been most ineffective.
	There is a better way. We could have more police on patrol in our communitiesworking with our communitiesrather than having 100,000 spent every single day on getting ready for identity cards, which will curtail the liberties of our fellow citizens. We could make work and training compulsory in prison so that we cut the appalling reoffending rates. That would mean that those young people92 per cent. of young men are reconvicted within two yearswould be equipped with greater skills to read, write, get a job and make themselves respectable members of society, rather than going through a revolving door into the community and committing crimes against the constituents of all Members. We could have honest prison sentencesrather than the spin that we hear from the Governmentwhere life really means life.
	We could have new measures to tackle the problem of drink-fuelled violence, which has exploded under the Government. The idea that in 1997 the problem was worse in our town centres than it is today is a myth. Perhaps no Labour Members ever go out in town centres. The idea that drink-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour is being sorted out by the Government is beyond contempt. We could have better compensation for victimsthe people who are so often forgotten in this processand real work in prisons so that prisoners are able to reacquaint themselves with some of the challenges that they will face on the outside and so that they can pay their dues to both the victims of crime and society as a whole.
	We have had an interesting debate, but, more than anything else, it has revealed how thin and tired the Government's legislative programme is. I am afraid that the public have seen through the spin and the eye-catching initiatives that are designed to win headlines in tomorrow's papers, but do not seem to bear any resemblance to the effectiveness of tackling crime in the communities that we represent. They have seen through the endless legislation that is designed to score party political points in the House, but that does little, if anything, to tackle the problem of crime and antisocial behaviour. Labour Members think that the public do not understand that their day-to-day experiences are all too familiar. So many people see vandalism, graffiti, theft and other crime. They see that violent crime has doubled. Knife crime is up. Gun crime is up. The situation is serious, but Labour Members are living in a mythical world where everything is going all right, everybody in prison is being rehabilitated, crime is being sorted out and serious crime is being sorted out. When they go back to their constituencies, they can see with their own eyes that that is not the case. The public are sick of tough talk from Labour Ministers on crime. What they want is effective action to reduce crime, and that is what the Liberal Democrats are offering.

Vernon Coaker: I think the usual words are that we have had an interesting debate this evening. I want to put on the recordI think it important to do sosome of the Government's successes in tackling crimes. I will quote the sources so that Liberal Democrat Members, as well as my hon. Friends and other Members, can be clear about them. That should help to deal with some of the claims made in the Liberal Democrat Focus leaflets on crime, as my hon. Friends will hopefully be able to use  Hansard to attack them.
	It remains clear that much of what the Government have done on crime has been a success. Crimes that affect most people are down by 35 per cent., representing 5.8 million fewer offences; and the chances of being a victim of crime fell from 35 per cent. to 24 per cent., while fear of crime remains at historically low levels. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety said earlier, burglary is down by 59 per cent., vehicle theft by 60 per cent. and household offences are down by 45 per cent. All British crime survey violence offences are down 43 per cent. and all personal offences are down 41 per cent [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) wants me to continue, last year firearms offences were also down 14 per cent.
	May I also say that tools and powers to tackle antisocial behaviour are now being widely and wisely used with nearly 10,000 antisocial behaviour orders across the country? I do not know about my hon. Friends, but what I often encounter in community meetings up and down the country is not requests to abolish ASBOs because they are paraded as a badge of honour, but to hand out more of them. We are often told that approximately half of all ASBOs are breached, but it is important to remember that half of those responsible for those breaches end up with custodial sentences. If we spent rather more time saying that half of ASBOs are observed and that in respect of the half that are breached, half the people go to prison, we would see even more ASBOs used, as the public would view them as more effective. Alongside those ASBOs, more than 13,000 acceptable behaviour contracts have been used.

Jane Kennedy: On the subject of antisocial behaviour orders, the Minister may like to know that the Merseyside police use them extremely effectively against second-level criminals, such as the organisers of the drug dealers. They are based on the same rules as apply to young offenders. Very effective and imaginative use is being made of a tool that the Labour Government have provided to the police and which the Liberal Democrats have opposed.

Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend provides an excellent example, based on her experience in Merseyside, of how ASBOs can be used.
	More than 1,000 dispersal areas have also been established, but let me say this to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg). When it comes to ASBOs and dispersal orders, it is not about demonising young people. Everyone accepts that the vast majority of young people are decent people. What it is all about is ensuring that there are effective tools to deal with the behaviour of the minority of young people who cause problems in our communities. Who are the people who demand ASBOs, who demand action against criminal behaviour and who want acceptable behaviour contracts introduced? It is not people in this House. It is, by and large, other young people who are the victims of the sort of antisocial behaviour and criminality that take place on the street.

Julia Goldsworthy: On the subject of dispersal orders, there have been problems at both ends of my constituency. Those orders have been put in place, but all they have done is move the problem to another location. The young people involved have moved from Falmouth town centre to the beach and in the Illogan area they have moved to Portreath. Is it not just moving the problem around rather than dealing with it?

Vernon Coaker: It is not just a matter of moving the problem around, but of dealing with it where it exists. If the problem occurs somewhere else, it needs to be dealt with there. The hon. Lady has no doubt pointed out to the police in her constituency, who have used dispersal orders to try to deal with the problem, that she is against them. That is the point.
	It is important to put on the record the facts about spending on the police. On a like-for-like basis, Government grants and central spending to help the police service tackle antisocial behaviour and crime in England and Wales will have increased from 6.2 billion in 1997-98 to 11 billion in 2007-08. That is a cash-terms increase of nearly 4.8 billion or 77 per cent. In real terms, there has been an increase of more than 39 per cent. between 1997-98 and 2007-08. We can always debate the level of resources, but no one can deny that, by the time the recruitment has finished, there will be an additional 16,000 police community support officers where there were none before, 14,000 additional police officers, anda fact that is often missed out20,000 additional civilian posts, making an important contribution to ensuring that we keep police on our streets.

Paul Rowen: I am interested in what the Minister is saying about police numbers. The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety will be aware from our debate in Westminster Hall last week that there are 216 fewer police officers in Greater Manchester this year than there were this time last year. The police authority there is facing a 26 million shortfall in resources over the next two years. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are proposing to do anything about that? If not, it could mean further police cuts.

Vernon Coaker: Like every police force in the country, Greater Manchester will have received a significant increase, of at least 3.6 per cent., in its resource budget. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's party is in favour of local decision making. In response to representations from the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers, we have given local police forces flexibility over how they spend their money. We said that we would introduce local flexibility and local decision making. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt in favour of that. He can advocate dictating from the centre how resources are to be spent in a local area if he wants to, but we believe in local decision making. Local chief constables can make the decisions that they wish to make on their increased resources. That is what the hon. Gentleman supports, and it is what we support. He should stop moaning about it when it has consequences that he does not like.

Martin Horwood: The Minister has just quoted the figure of a 3.6 per cent. increase, but is not that simply in the general grant? If we are talking about overall funding of police forces, is not the figure well below that and, indeed, well below the police cost index, which would mean a cut in real terms? Will the Minister confirm that that is the case?

Vernon Coaker: It does not mean that at all. The hon. Gentleman knows that all police forces have had an increase of at least 3.6 per cent.
	I want to put on record some of the improvements that we have made. Since 2001, there has been an almost continuous improvement in the number of offences brought to justice. In the year to September 2006, the criminal justice system brought 1.38 million offences to justice. This represents an increase of 37 per cent. On gun crime, recent events show that there is no room for complacency, but in the year to September 2006 there was a 14 per cent. overall reduction in firearms offences. That is something that we should all be pleased about.
	Let us look at the Lib Dem policy on DNA records. They want to reverse the changes that we made to the law because they are opposed to the retention of such records. They should understand that, using the DNA database, killers, murderers and rapists who would otherwise have been walking freely around the country have been brought to justice. The majority of people in this country would be proud of the fact that DNA is now being collected in a way that means that people who would not otherwise be brought to justice are being brought to justice.

Simon Hughes: rose

Vernon Coaker: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have some further points to make.
	The Liberals, a large number of whom are here today, voted against the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 [Interruption.] Hon. Members shake their heads, but I will show them the relevant  Hansard afterwards. On 24 June 2003, they voted against the Bill, which contained the powers to close crack houses and the provisions for dispersal orders. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) was here; he voted against the Bill, as did the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). I have a whole list of them here. They all voted against the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. One or two Liberal Democrat Front Benchers may be a bit confused about that, but if they look in  Hansard, they will find a list.
	The dispersal powers in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 have been used more than 1,000 times across the country, so when the Liberal Democrats say that they want local teen gangs to be broken up, we point out that they opposed giving the police powers to disperse gangs of teenagers. Most astonishingly of all, in their mini-manifesto of March 2005, the Liberal Democrats informed us that they would end all jail sentences for possession of drugs of all classes. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam was not aware of that when he responded to one of my hon. Friends earlier. Are the Liberal Democrats honestly saying that that should apply to offences of possession of heroin, crack cocaine and crystal meth?

Simon Hughes: For simple possession.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman says that, but the honest answer to my question is yes. He needs to get out into his constituency, and the country more widely, and tell people that the Liberals oppose jail sentences for possession offences for any drug, including class A drugs. I hope that that is read into the record. Hon. Members of all parties can put that fact in their leaflets, so that when the Liberal Focus leaflets about being tough on offenders are sent out, hon. Members can point out that the Liberal Democrat policy on drugs is soft, and will lead to more harm in communities.

Simon Hughes: rose

Vernon Coaker: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; he was not in the Chamber for most of the debate.
	Another point that seems to have caught the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam by surprise was the fact that the Liberal Democrats want to allow 16-year-olds to buy alcohol. That seems to have come as a shock to him, yet in  Hansard on 25 January 2005, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) asked:
	Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is Lib Dem policy to legalise drinking at the age of 16? Does he think that that will contribute to a reduction in binge drinking?
	The hon. Member for Bath replied:
	The answer is yes. I do not think that I could explain the position more clearly.[ Official Report, 25 January 2005; Vol. 430, c. 185.]
	Liberal Democrats refuse to recognise that their policy on crime changes, depending on the issue, and it changes with the person who happens to be speaking, too. Frankly, the experience of hon. Friends and other hon. Members is that it also changes from one street to another.

Kevan Jones: Would my hon. Friend also say that Liberal Democrat policy changes during the course of a debate? On 2 June 2006, in  The Guardian, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) said:
	Accepting that the bulk of prisoners should retain the right to vote, whilst a minority of serious offenders should not, is a nuanced response to a difficult issue,
	but the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) told us today that that was not Liberal Democrat policy.

Vernon Coaker: I could not have put the point better myself.

Simon Hughes: I come from a borough where terrible gun crime has been in the news. Does the Minister accept that on some issues, such as reducing gun crime, there is much more agreement and collaboration, and much more working together on the part of parties and the community, than he pretends? There is unity on those matters, and working together is much better than creating artificial differences.

Vernon Coaker: On gun crime, as the hon. Gentleman will know, firearm offences have fallen by 14 per cent. in the past year. We are grateful for the opportunity that this debate gives us to point out what Liberal Democrat policy is, and to point out the difference between what Liberal Democrats say in the House, and what they say on the street, in their Focus leaflets.

Paul Burstow: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	 The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added,  put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):
	 The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 109.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the significant and lasting reductions in crime this Government has achieved since 1997 which mean that the chances of being a victim of crime are at historically low levels, 24 per cent. according to the most recent British Crime Survey figures, compared with 35 per cent. in 1997; notes the new and innovative powers to tackle anti-social behaviour which are helping provide respite to communities across the country; welcomes the introduction of biometric identity cards to combat immigration abuse, illegal working, identity fraud and crime as well as strengthening national security and improving access to public services; notes the delivery of an extra 19,000 prison places and an increase in spending on prisons by 35 per cent. in real terms over the last 10 years and a further increase over the next five years to deliver a further 8,000 places; welcomes the record numbers of police officers and police community support officers on the streets helping to make communities safer; and congratulates the Government on its commitment to driving down crime further.

MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Ordered,
	That Lynda Waltho be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Sir Peter Soulsby be added. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

PETITION

Schools (Hemel Hempstead)

Michael Penning: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Dacorum, which is part of my constituency, and in particular on behalf of families, children and teachers connected with Chaulden Junior school and Chaulden Infants' and Nursery school.
	The petition reads:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of the residents of Dacorum
	Declares that, they oppose the decision of the local County Council to close and amalgamate schools in the Hemel Hempstead area.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Education to reverse the decision of Hertfordshire County Council in relation to the closures and amalgamations of schools and to ensure suitable funding for schools in the light of future housing developments in the area.
	And the Petitioners) remain, etc.,
	 To lie upon the Table.

CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Colin Breed: In many respects I wish I were not here to speak about the dangers of carbon monoxide gas, and perhaps in some respects I should not have to be here to speak about those dangers. The last occasion on which we debated the subject of carbon monoxide was in 1998, at about the time I joined CO-Gas Safety, a charity set up in 1995, dedicated to raising awareness of carbon monoxide poisoning and supporting the victims and families of gas-related accidents and deaths. Neither I nor the charity's dedicated president, Stephanie Trotter OBE, ever imagined that we would still be here, nearly 10 years later, banging the same drum to raise awareness of an entirely preventable killer. For that is what it comes down to: every death caused by carbon monoxide is one death too many. There has been a great deal of talk in the last 10 years about a co-ordinated approach to carbon monoxide, but we have yet to see any firm action or actual funding committed to it.
	Carbon monoxide is a deadly poisonous gas which cannot be heard, seen, tasted or smelt, and can be tested only with equipment such as a flue gas analyser. It can cause death within two minutes of high-level exposure, and low-level long-term exposure can cause brain or neurological damage resulting in some victims' being confined to a wheelchair for life. People with carbon monoxide poisoning are often told by their GPs that they have a virus, or perhaps are suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis.
	The dangers of using unsafe gas appliances, and any unsafe appliance powered by a fuel that burns coal, oil, petrol or wood, have been highlighted in the media recently following a number of tragic casesparticularly that of the young brother and sister aged six and seven who died while on holiday in Corfu last October. The truth is that such deaths happen here, in our own constituencies up and down the country, but they are often under-reported. There is no automatic test of dead bodies in the United Kingdom like the test that happens in France, for instance. In 2003 a pathologist missed carbon monoxide in a previously healthy 11-year-old, until his parentswho had nearly died themselvesdemanded that they and he be tested for carbon monoxide poisoning.
	This debate is timely for another reason. Today, 7 February 2007, sees the first meeting of an industry working group on carbon monoxide which CORGI, the national gas safety watchdog, is co-ordinating. I have to say that I fear it will be yet another meeting with more talk and bluster to compensate for, or cover up, the lack of action that we have seen for many years. Co-ordinated approaches have been discussed, committees have met and sat, and since 1997 we have seen all sorts of initiatives, but what is actually required is funding to establish a much-needed awareness campaign. Why do the Government not force the fuel industry to provide those funds? Centrica last year announced a profit of 1.5 billion.
	The Health and Safety Commission made two much needed recommendations in 2000, neither of which have been implemented. Why? The first recommendation was to impose a modest levy on gas suppliers to provide funds for publicity about the dangers of carbon monoxide, and the second was to ensure that the gas emergency service has, and uses, equipment to test appliances in respect of carbon monoxide emergencies. Those two recommendations seemed very positive, and yet now, seven years later, they have not been taken up.
	Let me put some matters into perspective. A mere 1 levy per household per year would generate about 22 million which could easily fund a television warning campaign about carbon monoxide poisoning. That could be the type of television campaign that has been successful on the different dangers of household fires, smoking, and drinking and driving. How many households today do not have, or know about, smoke detectors? They are everywhere. There are not many households that do not at least have access to at least one smoke detector. Yet most home owners are totally unaware of the existence of carbon monoxide detectors; the cost of an audible such alarm is a mere 20, and it could save countless lives.

Fraser Kemp: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all the work he has done with the Carbon Monoxide and Gas Safety Societythe CO-Gas Safety Society. I moved a ten-minute Bill many years ago, one of the aspects of which was to examine the possibility of the automatic installation of carbon monoxide detectors, particularly in houses in multiple occupationHMOsand holiday homes, which can often be a major cause of problems.

Colin Breed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I entirely agree. HMOsparticularly student accommodation, where often gas appliances are not properly maintainedare vulnerable households, and we know that students often do not realise the importance of ensuring that such appliances are properly and regularly maintained.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I commend to him a firm in my constituency called Caroline Stuart International Ltd, which distributes spot carbon monoxide detectors. They are the size of a credit card. Should we not make holidaymakers aware of the dangers of carbon monoxide in the places they are visiting, because if they could take a credit-card sized spot carbon monoxide detector with them on holiday, many lives could be saved?

Colin Breed: That sounds sensible. I had not heard of such detectors. They would be useful not only for people who go abroad, but tourist accommodation in our own country sometimes has faulty gas equipment and if people holidaying at home carry that detector, they will be able to spot that with the spot. That ought to be part of the greater awareness campaign.

Anthony D Wright: I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. On HMOs, two of my constituents Michael Frosdick, aged 19, and Keith Reynolds, aged 17died in the same flat in 2003 as a result of a poorly fitted gas fire. The father of Michael, Brian Frosdick, said that if anything positive was to come out of the deaths of his son and his friend, the public must be made aware of how important it is to fit audible carbon monoxide detectors.
	In respect of HMOs, does the hon. Gentleman agree that establishing a national database of registered or licensed private landlords is one initiative that should be taken up? After all, it is now incumbent on people to register dog kennels, but it is not incumbent on us to register HMOs.

Colin Breed: I entirely agree. Simple measures could be taken to increase awareness of this issue and to ensure that detectors are fitted and that such appliances are regularly maintained. Those are relatively simple steps that would save lives.
	The all-party parliamentary group on gas safety, which published its report Raising Carbon Monoxide Awareness last September, pressed the Health and Safety Executive to introduce a zero fatality target for carbon monoxide poisoning; I wholly support that. It acknowledged that the figures on those affected by carbon monoxide poisoning short of fatality are limited, and that the real figures might be much higher than the current estimates. The Minister will doubtless tell the House that the number of such deaths has fallen, but that is nowhere near the worrying truth. Carbon monoxide is not tested for at the scene of a death, and even if its presence is suspected, it can cost up to 1,500 to investigate all the appliances that are potentially responsible. As I said, GPs rarely test for carbon monoxide, and in any case, such a test is usually undertaken some hours or days after exposure, leading to the danger of false negatives. Emergency services and hospitals must use carbon monoxide devices to establish levels of carbon monoxide poisoning in potential victims, but there should also be free testing of appliances, which is the surest and safest way to determine whether carbon monoxide poisoning was an effective factor in a death or injury.
	It is scandalous that although the gas emergency service has a duty to make people safe from carbon monoxide, which one cannot smellas well as from gas, which one can smellit has no equipment to test for the presence of carbon monoxide. That is like having a radiation emergency without a Geiger counter to detect it.
	Another serious issue raised was that of illegal gas workers. Some 55,000 businesses, employing around 111,000 gas-fitting operatives, are registered with CORGI. However, estimates from CORGI, which recently undertook research into illegal gas work, suggest that up to one in five gas workers may be unregistered. That means that up to 25,000 illegal and potentially dangerous gas workers are operating in the UK. These are shocking figures, and there needs to be a crack-down. The Government must make sure that regulations to stamp out these illegal workers are enforced, and that the necessary funds are provided.
	I return to the 2000 recommendations, which were not implemented. Attempts were made by the Health and Safety Commission to impose them voluntarily, but they unfortunately failed in the face of non co-operation by the industry. Seven years later, we now have the recommendations of another gas safety review undertaken by the HSC. The main recommendation is that CORGI or an equivalent body should take responsibility for many aspects of gas safety, including raising awareness of the dangers of carbon monoxide. Interestingly, there is no reference to the non-implementation of the 2000 recommendations. However, it is clear that this is a massive challenge for whatever body is given that responsibility. A major TV campaign has been needed for decades. It would be nice to think that a mandatory levy is not necessary, but the truth is that a voluntary levy simply has not worked.
	CORGI already suffers, in a way, from a conflict of interest. It regulates the gas safety industry on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, but it also relies on its own membershipthose gas fitters who are registeredfor its income. An example of such a conflict of interest could be a complaint made by consumer X, who may have been poisoned by the installation made by gas installer Y, who is a CORGI member. How would CORGI regard that conflict of interest in trying to resolve the problem? The onus should surely rest on the gas industry as a whole.
	I have already mentioned the lack of solid figures on the number of deaths caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. What I can cite instead are some startling figures, based on University College London research, that were referenced in the HSE's press release of last October. The research found that 23 per cent. of homes had one or more defective gas appliances. Some 8 per cent. of homes were judged to be at risk of dangerous levels of carbon monoxide, and 45 per cent. of homes had received no information on the dangers of carbon monoxide. A higher prevalence of problem appliances was found in the homes of vulnerable peoplethe young, the old and those in receipt of benefits. The simple truth remains: carbon monoxide poisoning is entirely preventable. That means that even one more death is one too many. It must surely be time now for real and immediate Government action to tackle this problem, which has been with us for far too long, once and for all.

Anne McGuire: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing this important debate. It has given the House an opportunity to consider an issue that he rightly identifies as of high importance. We have been actively pursuing renewed solutions, and the fact that so many hon. Members have attended this debate is an indication of its importance.
	I know that many hon. Members have had experience of similar situations to those that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. I certainly am only too aware of the problems that can arise from defective gas appliances, because two of my constituents, young students in their 20s, died from carbon monoxide fumes from a portable room heater. The hon. Gentleman identified the tragic deaths of the two children, Christianne Shepherd and her brother Robert, on holiday in Corfu. I am especially pleased to note that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Ed Balls), has joined me on the Treasury Bench, because those two children were constituents of his and he has had much contact with the families concerned.

Mary Creagh: British tour operators' guidelines state that carbon monoxide checks should be carried out every three years. Does my hon. Friend agree that annual checks should be carried out on properties abroad by British CORGI-registered fitters to ensure that the tragedy that befell Christianne and Bobby Shepherd never happens to any other family on holiday?

Anne McGuire: I would not wish to disagree with what my hon. Friend says, although there is always an issue about whether one can impose a regime on another country. However, the tour operators have significant leverage to ensure the introduction of some of the safety measures that my hon. Friend has highlighted.
	Tragically, deaths abroad will continue, but as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall suggested, we have serious poisoning issues closer to home, including in the home, where people expect to be reasonably secure. On behalf of the House, I extend my sympathy to the victims of carbon monoxide poisoning and their relatives and friends, especially those who have been bereaved and those who continue to suffer long-term ill health effectsan important point which was raised by the hon. Gentleman.
	The Government welcome the work of the all-party gas safety group in helping to raise awareness of gas safety dangers. I wish to record the Government's appreciation of the valuable work done by the campaign groups, such as CO-Gas Safety, of which the hon. Gentleman is vice chair, in publicising the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning and the measures that people can take to protect themselves. It is all too easy to sideline campaign groups, but that would be the wrong response here. CO-Gas Safety does an excellent job in helping to raise public awareness of gas safety risks and carbon monoxide poisoning especially.
	A new cross-Government group has been established, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted, to support a cross-ministerial group on gas safety, as announced in a written statement recently. That is the sign of the seriousness that we attach to the issue. For more than 20 years, domestic gas safety has been controlled within the framework of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. In that period the regime has undergone many reforms aimed at tightening gas safety standards for domestic consumers.
	A key feature of the regime since 1991 has been the legal requirement that anyone undertaking work with a gas fitting or service pipe must be competent. If the work is done as part of a business, that business must be registered with the Council of Registered Gas Installers, the HSE-approved body, and it must employ only those fitters who are properly trained and certified as competent.
	In 1994, specific gas safety duties were placed on landlords to maintain appliances in rented accommodation in safe condition and to have them checked annually. I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall will accept that that was in response to a real worry about gas safety standards in rented propertyan issue raised also by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone).
	Many landlords take their legal responsibilities in respect of gas safety seriously, but some do not. There is no doubt that some tenants are at greater risk than others. As my hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) and for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) noted, the people most at risk are students and young people in houses of multiple occupation.
	Thankfully, there has been a downward trend in the number of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning over the past 10 years, but I accept the understandable concern raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall about the lack of post-mortem evidence. Over the same period, the number of dangerous gas fitting incidents reported to the HSE has decreased by more than 50 per cent. That is a good record, given that this country has 22 million households, but it is still not acceptable. We can and must do more to improve the situation. Sixteen needless deaths are too many, and the House will understand the anguish that people suffer when family members are killed by something that is preventable.
	Raising public awareness of the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, and of how people can reduce it, is the only effective way to resolve the problem. I call on the industry to exercise leadership and to do much more than merely delivering the key gas safety messages. This debate is a good opportunity to remind the public about those messages. Householders should arrange to have their gas appliance regularly checked for safety by a CORGI-registered installer. Appliances should be installed by competent people, and should always be used correctly. Carbon monoxide fumes are produced when there is insufficient air to allow the complete burning of the gas, and that is why it is most important to ensure a good air supply. Gas appliances should never be used if there are any signs that they are not working properly. The signs to look out for include yellow and orange flames, soot or stains around the appliance, and a pilot light that frequently blows out.
	Approved carbon monoxide detectors with an audible alarm are highly recommended, but they should be regarded as a back-up precaution. They are no substitute for regular servicing by a CORGI-registered installer.
	The symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning include tiredness, drowsiness, headaches and breathlessness. I have a personal understanding of that, as my daughter, when she was a student, came home one night and complained of headaches and drowsiness. Fortunately, we knew what action to take, and were able to identify that the gas fire in her student accommodation was not working properly.

Fraser Kemp: On that point, will my hon. Friend have discussions with her colleagues in the Department of Health about how we can raise awareness of these matters in the medical profession? The symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning can in many ways resemble the flu, especially at this time of the year.

Anne McGuire: Of course I will. We need to work together to ensure that all the bases are covered.
	When things go seriously wrong, the HSE normally takes enforcement action against the culprits. Gas safety cases make up about 6 per cent. of all prosecutions mounted by the HSE, which is a significant proportion given the wide range of industries covered by the HSE's remit. Landlords have been imprisoned for gas safety failures and substantial fines have been imposed in some cases. The message from this debate is that such offences will not be taken lightly; a landlord can end up in prison.
	The HSE is targeting and strengthening enforcement against installers who are not CORGI-registered. For example, a recent case in the south-west led to prosecutions, and the courts imposed fines and community orders. As such cases generate significant local and national publicity about gas safety issues, it reinforces their deterrent value.
	Much more needs to be done to raise public awareness of gas safety. Most recently, my ministerial colleagues, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, have been taking steps to engage the gas industry in renewed efforts to raise awareness, building on the industry's opportunities for direct contact with consumers. I re-emphasise the fact that although the evidence shows that existing arrangements have helped to improve safety standards, the Government accept that much more can and should be done, and that fresh arrangements may be needed in the future. That is why we initiated the comprehensive review, to which the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall referred.
	As I said, the Government have recently engaged the gas industry in renewed efforts to raise awareness. As part of its review the HSE commissioned research on gas appliances in people's homes. The hon. Gentleman alluded to some of the horrendous stories revealed by such research. The HSE research showed that 45 per cent. of homes had received no information about the dangers of carbon monoxide.
	The Government believe that co-ordination is critical in initiatives to raise awareness. Individual companies have been active, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, but the industry has accepted the need for closer partnership working to ensure that messages are consistent and information is targeted effectively at those who need it most. The silent killer does not discriminate, but research shows that faulty appliances are more likely to be found in the homes of the most vulnerable consumers. Last year, only 45,000 of the 5 million eligible customersless than 1 per cent.took advantage of the gas suppliers' free annual gas safety check for householders who are of pensionable age, disabled or chronically sick. We need to make sure that people benefit from existing initiatives, as well as looking into how we can strengthen other aspects of awareness.
	Further measures will be taken following a decision by my noble Friend Lord McKenzie of Luton about the recommendations arising from the HSE review of gas safety. However, as I have indicated, the Government are already actively working with the gas industry to raise awareness of the dangers of carbon monoxide. We shall continue to act on the basis of partnership to ensure that those best placed to make a difference can do so, and that the activities of different stakeholders reinforce each otherincluding the organisations with which the hon. Gentleman and other Members are involved.
	I am pleased that the gas industry has made a commitment to do more. It now needs to show that it will deliver on that important commitment. With that approach, I hope that a further reduction in CO2 poisoning incidents will be possible and that there will thus be a reduction in the associated suffering of victims and their families.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eight o'clock.